POL 210 Western Political Concepts I (Fall 2022)

Welcome to the course! POL 210 is a course that studies some of the basic ideas of political thinkers from Plato through Hobbes. The purpose is to help you understand the fundamental questions that our greatest political theorists and philosophers address in their writings and to indicate how several great traditions of philosophy answer those questions. All of the assignments for the course will be posted on this site, usually after being announced in class, by the morning of the next day after class.

The course is a readings course. Each week (not each class) about fifty to seventy-five pages of reading will be assigned. The reading assignments will be the basis of the class discussions, the frequent quizzes, the essay—not short answer—exams, and the two or three short paper assignments. If you do not read the assignments carefully, the chances of getting a "C" or better in the course are slim.

FOR THE FINAL

The final will be on Tuesday, December 13th in our usual classroom at 2:00pm. Bring pens with black ink and your student ID numbers. The usual drill.

As I explained in class, the final exam will consist of four essay questions: two comprehensive questions that cover material from the whole semester and two questions that focus on the readings since the last mid-term. Let's look at the comprehensive questions first.

The course aims at teaching you the fundamental conceptions of several traditions of political philosophy and how those conceptions relate to each other in each tradition. To quote from the very first words of the first assignment in the course:

"It is remarkable how many arguments that might be thought to be ethical or political, and so to deal with purely practical matters, depend in fact on much deeper philosophical issues. This is none the less true because the men of action who put them into practice may not always be aware of it; and often the connexion is in fact a fully conscious one. Politics and morals, general theories of human nature, metaphysics [cosmology and ontology], and epistemology cannot be separated.” From W. K. C. Guthrie, The Sophists, in the "Introduction to Political Theory and Philosophy".

The final exam aims in part at seeing how well you mastered the purpose of the course.

The two comprehensive questions on the final exam aim exactly at that truth. Here are three comprehensive questions: two of these three questions will appear identically on the final:

  1. In the Epicurean tradition, explain how the Epicurean conception of politics depends upon the five fundamental conceptions that we have been studying all semester. Support your explanation with references to the writings and authors of the Epicurean tradition that were assigned throughout the semester. You should use such terms as teleology, purpose or function, reason, authority and sources of authority in your essays and should demonstrate that you know what these terms mean. Use as much detail from those writings as you can: show me that you read the assignments.
  2. In the Classical tradition, explain how the Classical conception of politics depends upon the five fundamental conceptions that we have been studying all semester. Support your explanation with references to the writings and authors of the Classical tradition that were assigned throughout the semester. You should use such terms as teleology, purpose or function, reason, authority and sources of authority in your essays and should demonstrate that you know what these terms mean. Use as much detail from those writings as you can: show me that you read the assignments.
  3. In the Classical Christian tradition, explain how the Classical Christian conception of politics depends upon the five fundamental conceptions that we have been studying all semester. Support your explanation with references to the writings and authors of the Classical Christian tradition that were assigned throughout the semester. You should use such terms as teleology, purpose or function, reason, authority and sources of authority in your essays and should demonstrate that you know what these terms mean. Use as much detail from those writings as you can: show me that you read the assignments.

Two of these questions will be on the exam!

The other two questions will focus on the material that was assigned since the last mid-term:

Two questions on the exam will be the kind of compare and contrast questions that you have seen on the first two mid-terms, including one that begins with quotes for you to identify: the quotes will be from the classical authors—Epicurus, Aristotle, Augustine, etc.—not from modern authors such as Cohn and Macridis. The questions will ask you to use as much detail from the assigned readings as you can. Show me that you have read the assigned readings.

Each of the four exam questions will be worth twenty-five points, with a few bonus points possible for the question with identifications. The exam will be two hours and fifteen minutes long: 2:00pm to 4:15pm.

Prepare Well!

For the Week of December 6 and 8—the last week:

Let me mention again that there is still opportunity for your you to significantly improve your grades. The third paper (10%), the final (25%), and the final quiz grade (10%) are still to be completed. The quiz this Thursday could help some of you to signifcantly improve your overall quiz grade. Hang in there.

For Tuesday, the one-page paper and the excerpts on Gnostic ethics are due. No quiz. The rules for the one-page paper are set forth in red below. As you read the excerpts from Jonas, Knox, Cohn, and Mahé, you will note that the first three authors focus on a common attribute or concept of Gnostic ethics, though they refer to it by different labels. What is this fundamental attribute? How does it logically follow from Gnostic cosmology and philosophic anthropology. Mahé, on the other hand, focuses more on what we might call the "lifestyle" or character of a serious Gnostic, and his account balances somewhat the view of the Gnostic fundamental conception of ethics and its consequent behavior described by Jonas, Cohn, and Knox. Incidentally, the short excerpt from Cohn in this packet of excerpts and the Intro and chapter from Cohn's book that we discussed on Thursday should be kept separate: do not use any material from the Intro and chapter that we discussed on Thursday in the one-page paper.

The excerpts on ancient Mesopotamia by Thorkild Jacobsen for Thursday are from The Intellectual Adventure of Ancient Man, the same text that includes the chapter on "Myth abnd Reality" that we read in the second week of the semester, and it makes several references to that earlier chapter as well as to the chapters on ancient Egypt that precede the chapters on Mesopotamia. The excerpts explain how the cosmologies of primitive myth-making or mythopoeic man conditioned and influenced their conceptions of politics. The conceptions of politics of ancient Egyptians and Mesopotamians, as well as other ancient civilizations, reflected their view of the universe—the cosmos. The cosmos or macrocosmos is the model on which the state or political society is based: the state is a microcosm. States based on this formula are called "cosmological" societies. The Classical philosophers Plato and Aristotle successfully replace the cosmos with the nature of man, the philosophical anthropology, as they articulated it. Their conception is known as the "anthropological" paradigm or society. What is our paradigm today?

Rules/Guidelines for One-Page Papers

Topic: Compare the Classical Christian conception of ethics as reflected in the assigned excerpts from St. Augustine and St. Thomas with the Gnostic conception of ethics as discussed in the assigned excerpts from Jonas, Cohn, Knox, and Mahé.

  1. The deadline is the beginning of class on Tuesday, December 6th. If you cannot make it to class, you must email the final draft to me as an attachment by 2:00pm Tuesday, and then bring me the hard copy on Thursday. The one-page attachment must be something easily downloadable for me at home—Word or PDF documents. Not Google Docs. If I can't print it, I can't grade it.
  2. No separate title page. As you did for the first two papers, put only your Marymount Student I.D. number—NOT YOUR NAME OR INITIALS— at the top of the page to insure complete anonimity. (This is why if you send me a paper it must be sent as an attachment: so I can de-tach it from your email if necessary and print it as a document identifiable only by your Student ID number at the top of the page. If you violate this anonymity rule, I will not accept the paper and you will receive a zero.
  3. The absolute limit of your paper is one page—about 300 words. I will not read anything that is not on the one page. Use an eleven or twelve point font, preferably Times New Roman, Univers, Garamond, or CG Times, black ink, double-spaced, and the default page margins: typically about one inch all around.
  4. The only sources to be used are the assigned readings that are cited in the Question/Topic—the excerpts from Augustine and Aquinas that we discussed last Tuesday and the excerpts from Jonas, Knox, Cohn, and Mahé that are assigned reading for Tuesday. No other primary or secondary materials—written or oral, internet (no Wikipedia!!!), paper, or personal—may be used or consulted. This is essentially a closed-book exam. Failure to follow this rule will result in a zero for the paper and a report to Academic Integrity for plagiarism.
  5. Use the footnote format that I explain below. You need at least four footnotes/references for this paper to nail down your quotes and paraphrases. You should use Ibid. for subsequent references to the same source as demonstrated below.
  6. Do not begin the paper with a restatement of the topic or other general fluff. You do not have enough space for wasted words, so get right into a statement of your main point/conclusion and your two supporting paragraphs.
  7. I will ratchet up the grading of the papers: (1) the grade on this first paper/writing sample is based upon (a) simply following these directions, (b) making a good faith effort, and (c) reflecting the readings in your argument; (2) the grade on the second paper counts the writing & content equally so a paper with lousy writng but good content (or vice-versa) may or may not pass, and (3) the writing and content are counted together on this third paper, so a paper with more than three errors will fail regardless of content. PROOFREAD! PROOFREAD! PROOFREAD!

The purpose of the references is to enable me or any reader to find the exact passage you are quoting or paraphrasing or otherwise referring to. For this paper there are two possible sources for you to cite: (1) Hume's essay and (2) Locke's Second Treatise. Cite them as I do below.

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: Machiavelli said, "Everyone ought to go to church each Sunday."1 PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE GET THIS SEQUENCE CORRECT: the FINAL MARK OF PUNCTUATION, then the END QUOTATION MARK, and then the FOOTNOTE. (Always end your footnote with a period.) Here are sample footnotes for Augustine and Aquinas, and for Jonas, Cohn, Knox, and Mahé to demonstrate the form your footnotes should take. None of these footnotes refers to the specific sources for this paper:

1St. Augustine, City of God, X.5 (Cite City of God by book and chapter number as found in the printed handouts.

2Ibid. (A reference to the exact same source—author, title, the location in the text—in the very next footnote. "Ibid." refers back to the source in the previous footnote.)

3Ibid., X.6. (Reference to the same source, but a different chapter.)

4St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, Question 95.1. (Cite Thomas's work by Question and Article numbers.)

5City of God, X.8. (Reference only by title to an earlier-cited source which was not cited in the immediately preceding footnote.)

6Hans Jonas, The Gnostic Religion, 153. (Reference again to author, book title, page number.)

7Norman Cohn, The Pursuit of the Millennium, 200.

8R.A. Knox, Enthusiasm, 50.

9Jean-Pierre Mahé, "Gnostic and Hermetic Ethics," 30. (For Mahé simply cite his name, the title of his article, and the page number. The name of the book in which the article appears, Gnosis and Hermeticism from Antiquity to Modern Times is not necessary here and should not be included.)

The other punctuation to be mastered is the introduction of quotes. If you introduce them using the word "that" (what Turabian calls run-in quotes), 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 societies is the history of class struggles." Here, a comma follows the verb "said," and the first word of the sentence is capitalized. The content of the quotes must be absolutely perfect; proofread the quotes several times to make sure. This and the preceding footnote protocol was covered in the writing workshop held on March 4th.

One further note: do not use the noun "human" as a synonym for "man" unless you are specifically distinguishing between a human trait (note the adjective here) and a divine or animal trait. The noun "human" implies this distinction. In this discipline, the noun "man" or "human being" is the standard reference in works of political theory and philosophy. Also, use the word "divine" as an adjective only: it is not a synonym for "God or "a god."

For the Week of November 29 and December 1:

In the last two weeks of the semester we will cover the Classical Christian and the Esoteric conceptions of ethics and politics. There will also be the third and last one-page paper (Due December 6th). The final is on Tuesday, December 13th. Here are the points to keep in mind:

  1. The assignment for Thursday is the excerpt from Norman Cohn's Pursuit of the Millennium describing millenarianism in the Middle Ages. This pattern of thought is extremely important for an understanding of much of the politics of the past two centuries. This was also handed out before we left on Break. I put extra copies for those who were absent in the rack on the wall outside my office door, Rowley 1018. Check the Classical-Christian section of "Readings I" page for a list of study questions to help you get through the material. There will be another quiz.
  2. The assignment for Tuesday is the excerpts from St. Augustine and St. Thomas that I handed out when last we met:
  3. I put three extra copies of all three (3) of these handouts in the rack on the wall outside my office door in Rowley 1018. If you were not in class last Thursday, please pick up your copies before tomorrow's class in order to prepare for the quiz.

I will give you the topic for the December 6 paper on Thursday.

Review your mid-terms and use the the outlines of the content I expected to be in the essays to judge your answers. Please make an appointment to discuss your exam with me during office hours! There is room for all of you to improve; I can help.

For the Week of November 15-17:

There were lots of good questions—questions related to the Epicurus text—during the last class. Keep it up!

We have now discussed Epicurean ethics and politics sufficiently to see that the source of authority relied upon in this tradition is convention and that the function that government is expected to perform is directly related to the conception of human nature or empirical anthropology.

On Thursday, before discussing Aristotle's ethics and politics, we will begin with a discussion of the conceptions of political ideologies reflected in the approaches of Eric Voegelin, Roy Macridis, and Gerhart Niemeyer. This is not to say that the arguments of Epicurus, Hobbes, Rousseau, or Locke are "ideologies"—they are not. I will discuss how the materialist ontology of the Epicureans can serve as a foundation for ideological thought, however. Please read (1) the excerpts from Aristotle that I handed out last week (they are on the "Readings" page) and (2) Niemeyer's conceptions of the "total," "teleological," and "axiological"—Look it up!—critiques of society.

For Tuesday, please read the excerpts from Hobbes that I handed out in class (two extra copies are in the rack on the wall outside of my office in Rowley 1018) and also review the passages highlighted in red in chapter thirteen of Leviathan, which was assigned a couple of weeks ago. There will be a quiz on Tuesday covering this assignment and also covering the approaches to ideology by Voegelin and Macridis that I assigned for this past Thursday, November 10th (see the past week's assignments directly below in bold print; the assigned material on ideologies is highlighted in red on the "Introduction to Political Ideologies" link). Use the introductory material and the material on the Epicurean tradition on the Ethics and the Politics pages of the "Western Political Concepts I Readings" link. Some study questions are there, too.

For Thursday, please read the Aristotle excerpts that I handed out. Again, a quiz. I want to give you as many quizzes as I can to give you a chance to raise your quiz grades.

I will return the graded exams on Thursday.

For the Week of November 8-10:

A light reading assignment for Thursday: we will begin studying the final two conceptions of the course, ethics and politics, and also the conceptions of "ideology."

As before, we will begin this last phase of the course with the Epicureans, and with the Founder of the tradition himself. Epicurus's "Principle Doctrines" and his "Letter to Menoeceus" set out clearly the basic principles of Epicurean ethics and political justice. The "Letter," which I suggest you read first, gives a full description of the ideal Epicurean life as it has been understood in ancient and modern times. Thomas Hobbes's seventeenth century elaboration of Epicureanism and Jeremy Bentham's "utilitarianism" in the late eighteenth century offer little in the way of difference from their intellectual mentor two thousand years before. It is a basic and enduring vision of life. Note his comments about God.

The "Principles" repeats many of the ideas in the Letter, but also adds ideas of political and legal justice that the Letter does not include. Read in particular principles 3, 6, 8, 14, 17, 31-34, 36-38 on justice and ethics.

I also want to introduce you the idea of "ideology" as a mode of thought that is fundamentally different from theory and philosophy. The "Introduction to Political Ideologies," which is linked here and on the main website, contains a number of different approaches—that is, different "concepts"—of ideology and its relevance to politics. Please read the first approach, which describes Eric Voegelin's explanation, and the eighth approach, which discusses Roy Macridis's conceptions and a couple of related ideas that are particularly pertinent to our contemporary situation.

  1. Quiz Grades. It is now clear that there will be at least ten quizzes this semester. Regardless of how many quizzes you take, I will take your best eight quiz grades to calculate your final quiz grade, which will be 10% of your final grade. The formula: your total number of points from your best eight grades, divided by eighty (80) points.

  2. The Second Mid-term Exam on Tuesday, November 8th. This exam will cover twice the number of readings as the first exam, so be sure not to put off studying for it until Monday evening. It will also cover two broad concepts—epistemology and anthropology—instead of just one—cosmology/ontology. You must be able to distinguish philosophic anthropology (the nature of man) from empirical anthropology (human nature). Finally, it will only cover the readings since the last exam on September 27th; it does not include the material from the first month of the course.

    The test will consist of three essay questions which compare and contrast the positions of some of the four traditions that we have been studying—the Epicurean, the Classical, the Classical Religious or Classical Christian, and the Esoteric—with one another. Two of the questions will begin with author-title-tradition identifications like the ones on the quiz I gave you last week. You must get the traditions correct in order to write a good essay.

    As always, I am looking for essay answers that (1) directly address the questions (2) with accurate information (3) reflecting the assigned readings. You must demonstrate to me that you have read the assignments.

    As before, I suggest that you consult the introductory essay with which we began the semester to sharpen your definitions of the philosophical concepts and the four main philosophic traditions that you will be discussing. I also strongly suggest that you study the "epistemology" and "anthropology" pages on the "Western Political Concepts I Readings" link on my website to use as study guides.

Keeping in mind the times that the philosophers lived is helpful in understanding who influenced whom:

For the Week of November 1-3:

For Thursday, please read the Poemandres, a Hermeticist document that I handed out last week, and the two new readings by McKnight and van den Broek that I handed out yesterday. We will start with a short quiz on the main features of Gnosticism and Hermeticism based on all of the assigned readings for this week. Focus on the major points of each of the two doctrines and the major differences between them. I will also return the papers.

This week we will look at two interrelated but distinctly different traditions that are unfamiliar to most students of politics: Gnosticism and the Hermeticism. We were introduced to Gnostic thought with the Apocryphon a few weeks ago. To give you a more general introduction to Gnosticism, please read the excerpts from The Gnostic Religion by Hans Jonas, one of the leading excerpts on the subject, and the short Gnostic document "In Quest of the Priceless Pearl" for Tuesday.

For Thursday, in addition to the Poemandres that I already handed out last week, I will hand out a short introduction to Hermeticism.

for the Week of October 25-27:

I submitted your mid-term grades. I took your grade on the first mid-term exam and increased it to reflect the first one-page paper that you all handed in.

For Tuesday, (1) please study both of the excerpts from Saint Augustine that I handed out: the multi-page excerpts that I handed out last week, and the one additional page that I handed out yesterday (Thursday). Study questions are on the "Readings" page. The Plato handout is for Thursday. (2) Write a one-page paper comparing one of the two aspects of anthropology—philosophical or empirical—reflected in the Saint Augustine reading assignment to either Aristotle's or the Epicureans' view of that same aspect, as I explained in class. Use only the assigned readings for sources.

The schedule for the classes leading up to the November 8th mid-term are as follows:

Rasmussen Generic Ballot

Rasmussen Generic Ballot II

For the Week of October 18-20:

for Thursday, please read the excerpts from Book One of Aristotle`s Nicomachean Ethics that I handed out in class and that can be downloaded (along with study questions) from the "Readings" page. The study questions are in paragraph 2.b on the "Readings" page. The Saint Augustine excerpts that I handed out are for next Tuesday.

We turn this week to the concepts of anthropology: empirical anthropology (human nature or human behavior) and philosophical anthropology (the essential nature of man, man's relation to the cosmos). Please, please review these concepts on the "Anthropology" link of the "Western Political Concepts I Readings" page and in the "Introduction to Political Theory" that was the first reading in the course.

The introductory material at the beginning of the Lucretius text is very good. Give it a look.

The Hans Jonas excerpt is not assigned for next week. We will discuss that in the first week of November, just before the mid-term.

The semester is now half-gone.

For the Week of October 11-13:

Don't forget the half-hour writing workshops today (Thursday) before (@1:15pm) and after (@3:20) class in the classroom. For class, review the study questions for the Saint Augustine excerpts.

For Tuesday, please read the Aristotle handout that I gave you last Thursday on the intellectual virtues. As always, study questions are available on a link on the "Readings" page. By this time I hope you have realized that the quiz questions are directly related to the study questions. Since it appears that there will be quite a few quizzes this semester, the overall quiz grade will amount to 10% of the final grade, so it is time to take them seriously.

The assignment for Thursday will be the "set of excerpts" from St. Augustine's writings that are linked—with study questions, of course—on the "Readings" page. I will hand out a hard copy of the excerpts on Tuesday.

For the Week of October 4-6:

The assignment for Tuesday is the Hobbes handout (also available on the "Readings" page) and the accompanying Hobbes study questions, also on the "Readings" page. We will go over the Plato Divided Line and Cave reading in more detail and compare it to the Hobbes account. A quiz on Hobbes is possible. Christian, Diego, and Richard are scheduled for paper consults before class (1:00pm, 1:15, and 1:30, respectively) and Celeste, Mustapha, Elena&Sabah are scheduled after class. Sara and Ethan still need to make appointments.

I hope that the exam grades have made clear that studying—not just reading, or not reading—the reading assignments is essential to passing and to doing well in the course. I will be glad to discuss your exams with you during office hours once we get through the paper consultations this week. I hope the questions about the readings will increase during class time as well.

I will hand back the exams. The reading assignment for Tuesday is (1) the rest of the Lucretius material listed on the "Western Political Concepts I Readings" page, which is linked below this page on my main website and (2) the handout on Plato's Myth of the Cave, which is also available by a link on the "Readings" site. Study questions for both readings are linked on the "Readings" site. A quiz is very possible.

Jordan, Mya, and Mary: I'll see you before class in the Faculty lounge on the fifith floor. Tom and Lauren, I'll see you after class. There is one more appt. slot available for 3:50.

For the Week of September 27-29:

I hope that the exam was what you expected and not too mortifying. I will have the exams graded and returned to you next week.

For Thursday, a very light reading assignment as we begin the study of epistemology:

  1. Lucretius, On the Nature of Things, Book II lines 865-872, and Book IV lines 26-269.
  2. the first couple of paragraphs on epistemology on the "Epistemology Readings" link of the "Western Political Concepts I Readings" page on my website, which is linked just below this page.
  3. review the material we read earlier this month on the ancients on the different ways people know things, the way the ancients knew things, and the way they knew the sacred in particular.

The only new reading is the seven pages of Lucretius.

The first mid-term exam will be on Tuesday, September 27th. It will be a blue book essay exam. Please bring a black pen or two (I will have extras) and your seven number student I.D. number—no names or initials on the blue book. Please sit one person per desk/table in the classroom. The seventy-five minute exam will begin at 2:05 after I handout the blue blooks and the exams. It will end promptly at 3:20pm. I believe that another teacher has our classroom at 3:30, so we must get out of there.

The exam will consist of two or three essay questions of the comparison-contrast type, generally similar to your one-page paper but comparing more than just two traditions. I try to cover all of the readings in each exam. The readings for the exam are the following:

  1. the introduction to political theory (for basic definitions and a general overview)
  2. the excerpts from the Frankforts and Mircea Eliade on the ancient/primitive understanding of the cosmos
  3. the excerpts from Lucretius's poem on Epicurean cosmology and ontology
  4. the excerpts from Classical authors Aristotle and Cicero
  5. the excerpts from Classical Christian writers Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas
  6. the Gnostic document The Apocryphon

Key terms to know and use in your essays:

I am looking for as many details from the readings—not the class lectures—in your essays as are appropriate (a lot!). A good answer (1) directly addresses the question (2) with accurate and (3) precise, specific, details from the readings.

The big problem with essay tests is usually time: you must carefully allot your time so that you do not spend too much time on a question that you feel you know a lot about and leave yourself too little time to cover the rest of the exam. The clock on the classroom wall should be helpful to you.

Remember, to have an excused absence from the exam and thus to be able to take it during finals week, you need a documented excuse—an official piece of paper from a health professional, court official, or employer—to be excused. I must insist; I will enforce the rule strictly. Review the syllabus on excused absences. If you are unavoidably late for a few minutes, come on in and I will try to let you have as much time as I can, but I cannot promise the full time because of the following class.

Don't panic, just read the stuff carefully. Use this assignment page and the cosmology-ontology readings page for helpful information about the readings.

On Thursday we will review mytho-poeic and Epicurean epistemology, and I will hand back the one-page papers.

For the Week of September 20-22:

For Thursday, no new reading assignment for the exam, which will be on Tuesday, September 27th. I have some comments on each of the readings that we have read but on points that we did not cover in class. Detailed questions—not broad general ones—on any of the readings are welcome.

Thank you all for meeting the deadline yesterday and turning in—or emailing, where a few of you were either absent or thought you might be late—a paper. I do not think I will be able to read and mark-up all of them before tomorrow, but I will hand them back next Tuesday and begin to set up the writing workshop(s) and individual meetings thereafter.

For Tuesday, there are two assignments: (1) the first one page paper is due, and (2) you must read the excerpts from St. Augustine and St. Thomas. Since the paper topic asks you to compare what the saints say to what the Classical authors—Aristotle and Cicero—say, you must read the excerpts in order to write the paper. Thursday will be a wrap-up session, and the first mid-term exam is next Tuesday, September 27th.

The rules for the paper are below. The grade on this first paper/writing sample is based upon (a) following the directions below, (b) making a good faith effort and not a sloppy, careless effort, and (c) reflecting the readings in your argument. If you do that and hand it in on time, you will get full credit despite mistakes in writing and content.

For the Week of September 13-15:

For Thursday, I announced in class a different assignment from the excerpts from St. Augustine and St. Thomas handout that I gave you last week. Please read the Apocryphon of John, a Gnostic "gospel" or myth, that I handed out today. There are study questions on the "Western Political Concepts I Readings" page, and there is also a brief introduction to Gnostic thought on that page as well. I suggest it to you.

On Thursday I will also give you the one-page paper assignment that is due Tuesday the 20th, along with a sample paper for you to use as a model. The paper will involve the reading assignment for Tuesday, the aforementioned excerpts from St. Augustine and St. Thomas.

For Tuesday, please read the excerpts from Aristotle and Cicero on ontology and cosmology that I handed out in class. Study questions and introductory remarks for these and all readings are on the "Western Political Concepts I Readings" page, linked directly below this one on the main web site. From your responses in class on Thursday, I believe that the introductory comments on the Readings page would be helpful to all of you.

The central ideas in all of the ontology and cosmology readings are

  1. What is the nature of "reality"? What is really real? What truly exists? These are the questions of ontology.
  2. What is the structure/shape/architecture of the universe—the cosmos—?
  3. Does the cosmos have an inherent order or purpose—telos, end, goal, purpose? Is it "teleological"? Ask this of all the writers: Lucretius, Aristotle, Cicero, and St. Augustine.
  4. What is the relation of God to nature? Is God in nature—immanent? Is God somewhere in the natural world? Is God outside of nature—transcendent?

For the Week of September 6-8:

For Tuesday, please read the Eliade and the Frankforts handouts that I gave you last Thursday. We will use the study questions (linked on the "Western Political Concepts I Readings" page and here, just below this page on the main website) to work through the reading.

For Thursday, we will work through the assignment in Lucretius, On the Nature of Things. Use the study questions on the Readings page.

For the class of Thursday, September 1st:

Please read the essay "An Introduction to Political and Political Philosophy" that I handed out to you in class. A link to the essay is right below "Bernard Crick, In Defense of Politics" on my website, just a few lines below the link to this page. Come prepared to explain to me what cosmology, epistemology, etc. is; what the traditions are; what philosophy, theory, and ideology are; and so on. Show me that you read the essay.

On Thursday, I will give you the handouts by Mircea Eliade and the Frankforts that will be the reading assignment for next Tuesday. The assignment for next Thursday is from the Lucretius text and is listed on this website. I will show you where it is tomorrow.

For the POL 211 Final Exam (Spring 2020):

The fifty-minute final exam will consist of two essay questions: one on the material we covered regarding John Locke (remember him?) and one on the material that we covered on political ideologies.

The material and assignments for the study of John Locke can be found by scrolling down this page to the heading �For the Class of Friday, March 20th and Tuesday, March 24th.� Scroll a bit further and you will see that the assignments for Locke begin under the heading �For the Week of February 24th.� (I have removed from the weeks of February 24th to March 20th all of the instructions for the one-page paper that was assigned, the first one-paragraph quiz that you took, and other extraneous material.) The material boils down to the assigned sections from Locke�s Second Treatise, chapters from Thomas Hobbes�s Leviathan on the formation of the social contract, and the first twenty paragraphs of Hume�s essay �Of the Original Contract,� critiquing the social contract theory. You can ignore any assignment including Rousseau�s Social Contract for the final exam. Rousseau will not be on the exam.

Included in those few weeks of assignments are a number of study questions that I asked you to use when reading the assigned materials. These are excellent questions for you to review for the final.

The material on political ideologies began with the reading of the Communist Manifesto and followed with the scanned readings from Norman Cohn�s Pursuit of the Millennium, Graeme Wood�s article on ISIS, Richard Ellis�s chapter on apocalyptic environmentalism, and Alison Jaggar�s article on theories of feminism. We also studied several approaches to or concepts of political ideologies: Richard Watkins�s, Norman Cohn�s, and Kenneth Minogue�s. (I have not had the time to remove all of the one-paragraph quiz questions that I poseted since we went online.)

For the exam, you should be familiar with (1) the details of the five readings that I just listed and (2) one of the two approaches that we studied: Richard Watkins�s approach OR Norman Cohn�s: not Kenneth Minogue's. The test question will cover most of this material.

Two notes: First, as you review the two approaches to political ideologies, please keep in mind that Norman Cohn�s approaches lists five characteristics of the millenarian promise of salvation: if a particular argument or theory does not include a promise of �salvation,� Cohn�s concept is inapplicable.

Second, in reading your one-page papers this weekend, I was very concerned that so many of you concluded that Hume�s argument was ideological in nature. Let me say here that I cannot imagine any political argument that is less ideological in nature than Hume�s argument in �On the Origin of Government.� None of Watkins�s nor Cohn�s characteristics remotely apply to the ideas in Hume�s argument. Please, go back to both the approaches that we studied and, in light of the clearly ideological writings that we read and that the approaches clearly fit—the Communist Manifesto, the ancient and medieval �phantasies� described by Norman Cohn, the apocalyptic world view of ISIS, the dismal and millenarian environmentalist visions of the future in Ellis, and some of the feminist positions described by Jaggar—reconsider and readjust your understanding of the meaning of such terms as �utopia,� �perfection,� and �us versus them� (�Manichaean�). Did Hume really offer an apocalyptic vision of the future in which man would obtain a �heaven on earth�? Did he promise "salvation"? Just because someone says, "Let's try to make this better," or "Keep practicing until you get it 'perfect,'" does not make him an ideologue!

For the Week of April 27th and the Zoom meetings of Friday, May 1st:

A couple of essays on the effect of the environmental crisis (COVID-19) on Globalization:

Two writing assignments this week:

  1. The one-paragraph quiz on Alison Jaggar�s essay, described below; and
  2. The one-page paper on political ideologies that I will post on Tuesday at noon, once I get your paragraphs.

For the one-paragraph quiz due Tuesday at noon:

The quiz on Alison Jaggar�s essay on philosophies of women�s liberation or feminism is similar in some respects to last week�s Earth Day quiz on Richard Ellis�s chapter. Both readings survey different approaches relative to their subjects—environmentalism and feminism—some of which are �ideological,� as we have been using that term, and some of which are not. Each quiz question this week on Jaggar�s essay will again have two parts requiring two citations to the page numbers at the tops of the pages of her essay that I scanned you.

The precise element or component that you must apply in almost every question comes from the approach of Kenneth Minogue, approach #4 on the �Approaches to Political Ideologies� link that we have been using (it is the approach just below Norman Cohn�s approach; I went over each element with you during Friday�s Zoom meetings). Be sure to read the paragraph before the list of elements and the paragraph that follows the list.

Some questions also require application of elements of Watkins�s and Cohn�s approaches as well. Each two-part question asks you to apply elements of these approaches to one or two of the feminist ideologies or schools of thought that Jaggar describes: (1) liberal feminism, (2) classical Marxist feminism, (3) radical feminism, (4) lesbian separatism, and (5) socialist feminism.

    Remember:
  1. Each question has two parts;
  2. Each of the two parts needs a direct reference—be it a short quote or, better, a close paraphrase—to support your inclusion of the source in your answer; and,
  3. Each of the two direct references in your paragraph needs a parenthetical citation to the page in Jaggar�s essay—for example, (p. 240).

Some of the questions will test your understanding of the criteria that you apply and of the content of Jaggar�s essay. I will count the quality of your answer in your grade.

  1. Maggie: According to Jaggar, is liberal feminism based on �a doctrine about the systematic basis of the world�s evils, particularly oppression�? Is radical feminism based on such a doctrine?
  2. Rakan: According to Jaggar, does classical Marxist feminism maintain that everything that happens in the social world, including the inequities suffered by women, is explicable in terms of the basic structure of the human world? Does lesbian separatism maintain this?
  3. Gavin: According to Jaggar, does radical feminism maintain a �philosophical type of allegiance purporting to transcend family, religion, or native hearth, and its essence lies in struggle: the world is a battlefield� on which �everyone is assigned to one side or the other?� Does liberal feminism maintain this?
  4. Fifi: According to Jaggar, does radical feminism propose a utopian goal in which the future condition of men and wome is radically different from their present condition? Does liberal feminism propose such a utopian goal?
  5. Justice: According to Jaggar, what does classical Marxist feminism propose as event leading to women�s attainment of freedom and equality? How does this compare with the view of socialist feminists on the cause of women�s freedom and equality?
  6. Yasmine: According to Jaggar, given the structure of the world, why (what reason) do classical Marxist feminists argue that one day all women will enjoy the same �equality� and �freedom� as men? How does this differ from the view of the lesbian separatists?
  7. Luis: According to Jaggar, which school(s) or doctrine(s) of feminism foresee a future of peace and harmony among all people on earth? Which school(s) or doctrine(s) arguably do not.
  8. Giancarlo: According to Jaggar, is liberal feminism based on �a doctrine about the systematic basis of the world�s evils, particularly oppression�? Is radical feminism based on such a doctrine?
  9. Nebay: According to Jaggar, given the structure of the world, why (what reason) do classical Marxist feminists argue that one day all women will enjoy the same �equality� and �freedom� as men? How does this differ from the view of the lesbian separatists?
  10. Sara: According to Jaggar, does classical Marxist feminism maintain that everything that happens in the social world, including the inequities suffered by women, is explicable in terms of the basic structure of the human world? Does lesbian separatism maintain this?
  11. Ruhna: According to Jaggar, does radical feminism maintain a �philosophical type of allegiance purporting to transcend family, religion, or native hearth, and its essence lies in struggle: the world is a battlefield� on which �everyone is assigned to one side or the other?� Does liberal feminism maintain this?
  12. Mustapha: According to Jaggar, does classical Marxist feminism maintain that everything that happens in the social world, including the inequities suffered by women, is explicable in terms of the basic structure of the human world? Does lesbian separatism maintain this?
  13. Carly: According to Jaggar, does radical feminism propose a utopian goal in which the future condition of men and wome is radically different from their present condition? Does liberal feminism propose such a utopian goal?
  14. Anthony: According to Jaggar, what does classical Marxist feminism propose as event leading to women�s attainment of freedom and equality? How does this compare with the view of socialist feminists on the cause of women�s freedom and equality?
  15. Blake: According to Jaggar, given the structure of the world, why (what reason) do classical Marxist feminists argue that one day all women will enjoy the same �equality� and �freedom� as men? How does this differ from the view of the lesbian separatists?
  16. Melat: According to Jaggar, which school(s) or doctrine(s) of feminism foresee a future of peace and harmony among all people on earth? Which school(s) or doctrine(s) arguably do not.

Tuesday, April 28th by 12:00pm, when you also get the topic/question for the paper.

For the Week of April 20th and the Zoom meeting of April 24th:

From ideological patterns of thought to ideological movements.

One.Norman Cohn studied medieval millenarian movements and said they were composed of three parts:

  1. apocalyptic prophecies or phantasies (chapter one)
  2. prophets
  3. followers—masses susceptible to the prophets� messages
A. James Gregor studied fascism and fascist movements; used �ideology� as synonym for �prophecy� or �myth� Eric Hoffer�s The True Believer studied those susceptible to ideological belief

Two. Empirical v. ideological prejudice.

Three. Ideological �syndrome� or disease

Four. Introduction to Kenneth Minogue�s conception of �non-cosmological� ideology

Welcome to the Earth Day Quiz!

This week�s quiz is due Friday at 11:00am and is a little different from the last three. The assigned chapter by Richard Ellis surveys the views of many different sources—organizations, individuals, publications—often in only a paragraph or two. For example:

and almost twice as many others.

Applying the approaches of Richard Watkins and the author, Richard Ellis, to the sources surveyed by Ellis, each two-part question asks you to identify a source—a named organization, individual, or publication—that (1) reflects the characteristic described in the question and another source that (2) does not reflect it, either because the second source rejects it or because Ellis�s account of the second source does not include any information reflecting the characteristic.

For example, if asked for a source that relects a bright utopian future and one that does not, you might select any one of a number of sources affirming a utopian future, and you might choose William Ophuls as one source that does not, because nothing that Ellis says about Ophuls�s views are utopian.

I used Ophuls here as an example because I am expressly eliminating Ophuls from most of the questions. Forgive my skepticism, but the rather extensive three-page account of Ophuls at the very beginning of the chapter seems to me to provide too much a temptation to use Ophuls as a source for just about every question I ask. So read the questions carefully.

    Remember:
  1. Each question has two parts;
  2. Each of the two parts needs a direct reference—be it a short quote or a close paraphrase—to support your inclusion of the source in your answer; and,
  3. Each of the two direct references in your paragraph needs a citation to the page in Ellis�s chapter—for example, a citation in the form of "(p. 266)."

Some of the questions will test your understanding of the criteria of Watkins approach (not all of these sources promise a utopian solution; an authoritarian, police state is not a �utopia�) and some will require you to consider carefully everything that Ellis writes about that particular source. Offer a thoughtful, reasoned answer to the question. I will count the quality of your answer in your grade.

  1. Maggie: According to Ellis, do any of the environmentalist sources reflect the conviction that life here on earth can be perfected by human knowledge and action? Do any reject the possibility of achieving a good life on earth in the near to mid-term future? Do not use Ophuls.
  2. Rakan: According to Ellis, do any of the environmentalist sources reflect the belief that a collectivity or �people� will ultimately benefit from correct human action? Do any reject the reject the idea that a collectivity or �people� will ultimately benefit in a real way? Do not use Ophuls.
  3. Gavin: According to Ellis, do any of her environmentalist sources have clearly stated apocalyptic or utopian goals for the future? Do any reject or ignore such future goals? Do not use Ophuls.
  4. Fifi: According to Ellis, do any of the environmentalist sources think of the present and future in terms of a struggle between �us� and �them�? (Who are �us� and who are �them�.) Is such a struggle missing from any of Ellis�s accounts of the present and future? Do not use Ophuls.
  5. Justice: According to Ellis, are any of the environmentalist sources extremely optimistic about the ultimate future of mankind? Is such optimism missing from any of the sources surveyed by Ellis? Do not use Ophuls.
  6. Yasmine: According to Ellis, do any of the environmentalist sources advocate authoritarian, antidemocratic political solutions to the threat to the environment? Do any of them reject or oppose such antidemocratic, illiberal measures? Do not use Ophuls.
  7. Luis: According to Ellis, do any of the environmentalist sources offer a blueprint or clear path to a utopian future? Do any of them hope for mere survival, not a utopian future? Do not use Ophuls.
  8. Giancarlo: According to Ellis, what do some (any?) of the environmentalist sources identify as the fundamental cause/blame of the present environmental crisis? Identify an environmentalist source that, according to Ellis, assigns primary blame to a different cause. What is that different cause? Do not use Ophuls.
  9. Nebay: According to Ellis, do any of the environmentalist sources reflect the conviction that life here on earth can be perfected by human knowledge and action? Do any reject the possibility of achieving a good life on earth in the near to mid-term future? Do not use Ophuls.
  10. Sara: According to Ellis, do any of the environmentalist sources reflect the belief that a collectivity or �people� will ultimately benefit from correct human action? Do any reject the reject the idea that a collectivity or �people� will ultimately benefit in a real way? Do not use Ophuls.
  11. Ruhna: According to Ellis, do any of her environmentalist sources have clearly stated apocalyptic or utopian goals for the future? Do any reject or ignore such future goals? Do not use Ophuls.
  12. Mustapha: According to Ellis, do any of the environmentalist sources think of the present and future in terms of a struggle between �us� and �them�? (Who are �us� and who are �them�.) Is such a struggle missing from any of Ellis�s accounts of the present and future? Do not use Ophuls.
  13. Carly: According to Ellis, are any of the environmentalist sources extremely optimistic about the ultimate future of mankind? Is such optimism missing from any of the sources surveyed by Ellis? Do not use Ophuls.
  14. Anthony: According to Ellis, do any of the environmentalist sources advocate authoritarian, antidemocratic political solutions to the threat to the environment? Do any of them reject or oppose such antidemocratic, illiberal measures? Do not use Ophuls.
  15. Blake: According to Ellis, do any of the environmentalist sources offer a blueprint or clear path to a utopian future? Do any of them hope for mere survival, not a utopian future? Do not use Ophuls.
  16. Melat: According to Ellis, what do some (any?) of the environmentalist sources identify as the fundamental cause/blame of the present environmental crisis? Identify an environmentalist source that, according to Ellis, assigns primary blame to a different cause. What is that different cause? Do not use Ophuls.

Friday by 11:00am.

The reading assignment is the chapter from Richard Ellis entitled "Apocalypse and Authoritarianism in the Radical Environmental Movement." I sent a scanned copy to each of you on Friday, April 17th. I will post the individualized questions for the one-paragraph quizzes by Tuesday, April 21st.

Ellis describes several views of the world and predictions of the future by radical environmental groups. Following on Friday's discussion, some of these movements propose "cosmic scenarios" or narratives, stories, myths, visions, prophecies, scripts or screenplays that are projected or imposed on history. These plots or scenarios might be characterized as "second realities" that fundamentally reorder our understanding of the world—the "reality"—in which we live and by which we determine who we are. The term "second" or "pseudo" reality is derived from Robert Musil's The Man Without Qualities. See also Barry Cooper, New Political Religions (2002).

Thus we learn that the world in which we live is actually a war between the forces of good and the forces of evil—between two rival economic classes, two sexes, two or more races, or between "true" Jews, Christians, or Muslims and everyone else. This narrative assigns each of us an essential identity; we are each members of one of the rival groups, and it is our individual and collective destiny to play out the rôle that the cosmic screenplay has scripted for our group.

For each of us who has accepted the second reality as the primary reality, we are no longer bound or obligated by any existing norms or authority. We assume a completely antinomian attitude toward all authority except the authority of the leaders or doctrine of our assigned group. This frees us to commit terrorist acts in order to further the plot of our script regardless of the "innocence" or identify of the victims. Or our rôle may obligate us to destroy every aspect of existing culture ("nihilism") and overthrow the essentially false or bad political, religious, and social institutions that presently exist insofar as they are at odds with the institutions that our group or movement prescribes.

Thus, these ideological movements of cosmic dimensions pose a challenge to political, governmental, and other social institutions and norms that must be understood and to be intelligently confronted, as Graeme Wood strongly argues in his article and as Catherine Wessinger and others suggest in her collection of case histories.

For the Weeks of April 6th and 13th:

Our next Zoom meetings will be on Friday, April 17th, at the usual times. Use the ZOOM URL for the recurrent meetings that I sent you in March. I will send reminder emails on the evening of the 16th or morning of the 17th.

The assigned reading for this two-week period is the article on ISIS, which I sent to each of you as a scanned document. I have posted a list of individualized, one-paragraph assignments below. You responses are due on Friday the 17th by 11:00am. As per my earlier instructions, INCLUDE YOUR THREE-FOUR SENTENCE PARAGRAPH IN THE BODY OF YOUR EMAIL, NOT AS A SEPARATE ATTACHMENT TO YOUR EMAIL.

I have also updated the list of terms, listed under the week of March 30th and immediately below, relating to the Cohn chapter on apocalyptic prophecies or visions and I include this list of other, outside sources for you who are interested in the subject:

Some relevant terms from last Friday's class about Cohn's book, The Pursuit of the Millennium—expanded and annotated:

I have also updated the Grading Policy and Class Schedule sections of the syllabus to conform to the conversion to online format. Check it out.

The Assignment

The Graeme Wood article is an excellent overview of ISIS as it existed in 2015. In addition to the ideological elements that are of interest to us in this course, Wood�s article also discusses why the true nature of ISIS is important for politicians and political scientists in terms of foreign policy and military strategy, and his interviews give us some insight into the psychology of some of the ISIS adherents. Ideological movements sometimes pose significant challenges�violence, bloodshed, death, insurrection�to the social order that political institutions are supposed to secure. Politics and government must be familiar with religions and religious beliefs (�tenets�).

Of significance is his last section on �Dissuasion,� which suggests a way of approaching ISIS �true believers� through argumentation and discussion to dissuade or at least engage them on their own level and perhaps turn their minds. The dissuasion approach to ideological believers is something that Caterine Wessinger and others have advocated for a long time. See her book that I cited above. When one attempts to avoid violence and bloodshed in a confrontation with ideological groups such as ISIS or David Koresh and the Branch Davidians or the White Supremacists at Ruby Ridge.

Our concern, however, is not with strategy or foreign policy or psychology, but with the structure and elements of the ISIS core vision�what Wood sometimes loosely refers to as the �apocalypse� or core religious beliefs. The following questions ask you to determine whether various elements of Watkins�s conception of ideology and Cohn�s conception of medieval millenarian visions of salvation are present in the ISIS religious beliefs, as reported by Wood. (Watkins�s approach is #2 on the �Approaches to Political Ideologies� Link on my webpage; Cohn�s is #3.) Do not be distracted by Wood�s discussions of contemporary political and international concerns with ISIS.

Directions for One-Paragraph Emailed Responses.

Please send me a one-paragraph (three or four sentences only) answer to the question assigned to you below by 11:00am on Friday, April 17th. All questions are based on readings already assigned this semester. These assigned readings are the only materials that you may use to answer the questions. I will use Google and Turnitin if I suspect that another source was used. I have tried to frame each question so narrowly and specifically that it will be easier for you to simply review the readings than to (1) Google the question, (2) write down the Internet answer, and (3) get a zero for doing so. Every faculty member that I have talked to has said that the principal problem with online written assignments is plagiarism�cheating. I don't want to have to take you to a virtual Academic Integrity panel.

When you quote text in your answer, you may quote no more than a dozen (12) words total; paraphrasing is better. To cite the sources of your answer (you must cite sources), we will keep it really simple.

Cite passages from the Graeme Wood article by page number (page numbers appear at the bottom of each scanned page) in parentheses at the end of the appropriate sentence. Again, we're only talking about three or four sentences here.

Send me your paragraph as part of the body of your email, not as an attachment to your email. The importance of these little details are magnified with the online format. Please follow directions! I will take one point off for each of these instructions that is not followed. For plagiarism, I will take it to Academic Integrity.

So again, the Directions:

  1. Include the paragraph in your email; do not attach it.
  2. No more than four sentences total
  3. Cite at least one (short) quote or paraphrase by page number of the scanned document
  4. Email it to me by 11:00am on Friday

I will again grade these short assignments on a three-point�four-point, actually�scale: "0" (zero credit) if it is not turned in on time; "1" (=55%) if it is turned in but not acceptable; "2" (=75%) if it is acceptable; and "3" (=95%) if it is good, more than acceptable. The grade will be based on (1) reasonable evidence that you read and used only the assigned materials for your answer (no Wikipedia or other Internet sources) and (2) that you demonstrate a good understanding of what you have written. Evidence that you have read the material is based on the one or two citations to the readings that you put in your paragraph. Evidence that you understand what you write and are not merely reciting words is based on whether your paragraph makes sense and reasonably interprets the readings that you are using.

Make your responses thoughtful. Not all of the ideological components fit Wood�s reported material neatly, or at all, and require some judgment in your answer. All of these questions are, of course, premised entirely on Wood�s report.

  1. Maggie: Does the ISIS religion maintain that life here on earth is capable of being perfected by human knowledge and action? Evidence for or against?
  2. Rakan: Does the ISIS religion identify any �people� or collectivity the ultimate beneficiary of future history and ideological victory? If so, who? Evidence for or against?
  3. Gavin: Are the goals or objectives of ISIS utopian and �apocalyptic.� Evidence for or against?
  4. Fifi: Do the followers of the ISIS religion think in the simplified terms of a struggle between "us" and "them," friend and enemy? Evidence for or against?
  5. Justice: Are the followers of ISIS extremely optimistic in their view regarding the near future? Evidence for or against?
  6. Yasmine: Do followers of the ISIS religion maintain that their salvation is �collective,� in the sense that it is to be enjoyed by the faithful as a collectivity? Evidence for or against?
  7. Luis: Do followers of the ISIS religion maintain that their salvation is to be terrestrial (or immanent), in the sense that it is to be realized on this earth and not in some other-worldly (transcendent) heaven? Evidence for or against?
  8. Giancarlo: Do followers of the ISIS religion maintain that their salvation is imminent, in the sense that it is to come both soon and suddenly? Evidence for or against?
  9. Nebay: Do the followers of the ISIS religion maintain that their salvation will be total, in the sense that it is utterly to transform life on earth, so that the new dispensation will be no mere improvement on the present but perfection itself? Evidence for or against?
  10. Sara: Do the followers of the religion of ISIS maintain that their salvation will be miraculous, in the sense that it is to be accomplished by, or with the help of, supernatural agencies (God or Allah)? Evidence for or against?
  11. Ruhna: Are the goals or objectives of ISIS utopian and �apocalyptic.� Evidence for or against?
  12. Mustapha: Do the followers of ISIS think in the simplified terms of a struggle between "us" and "them," friend and enemy? Evidence for or against?
  13. Carly: Do followers of the ISIS religion maintain that their salvation is to be terrestrial (or immanent), in the sense that it is to be realized on this earth and not in some other-worldly (transcendent) heaven? Evidence for or against?
  14. Anthony: Do followers of the ISIS religion maintain that their salvation is imminent, in the sense that it is to come both soon and suddenly? Evidence for or against?
  15. Blake: Are the goals or objectives of ISIS utopian and �apocalyptic.� Evidence for or against?
  16. Melat: Does the ISIS religion identify any �people� or collectivity the ultimate beneficiary of future history and ideological victory? If so, who? Evidence for or against?

I have graded the one-page papers. All the papers passed. Starting Monday the 6th, I will include your paper grade and a salient comment that I wrote on your paper in the email with your graded one-paragraph answer. I will send the emails in the order in which I recieved your paragraph emails. You should receive them in the next couple of days. I do not want to violate my promise not to contact you by email on Sundays.

In general, your papers are still plagued by serious and not-so-serious writing problems, especially the issues that we went over in the writing workshop that I wish you had attended. In many papers, the poor writing obscures the meaning of your sentences; the errors are not just technical violations of grammatical rules. I am not sure what else I can do. I urge you again to study the last couple of paragraphs in the red �rules for one-page papers,� where I address the punctuation of quotes and notes. That and simply PROOFREADING, PROOFREADING, PROOFREADING may help get you to college-level writing.

Regarding content, a lot of you had problems with spelling out Hume�s position, perhaps because almost every paper referred only to one of the first nine paragraphs of Hume�s essay. Here are a couple of comments and quotes from Hume that may help:

Hume begins by saying that the two major parties (in Britain in the 1740s) take different positions on the ultimate source of political authority. One party attributes the source of authority to God; the other attributes the source of authority to the consent of the people in �a kind of original contract.� (Par. 1)

He immediately says that �both these systems� are just or justifiable, but neither is just in the sense �intended by the parties.� (Par. 2) Thus, he does not fully accept either one of them. When, in the next paragraph (#3), he says, �That the Deity is the ultimate author of all government, will never be denied by any,� he is not adopting that position for himself. He is laying out the position of the first of the two parties (roughly, the Tories) in more detail. Later in the paragraph he says that no sovereign can, by any other than the most general sense in which we might agree that everything ultimately comes from God, �be said to act by [God�s] commission.�

In the next paragraph he does the same for the other party (roughly, the Whigs), the champions of popular consent with their assertion of an original contract. He says that if mere animal level cooperation and agreement, the willingness to work with or live with somebody, is what this second party means by �the original contract,� then yes�all government is based on a �contract.� (Par. 4) But like attributing the source of all power to God, the attribution of all political power to this primitive consent or cooperation is so general as to be insignificant. Rather, in a later paragraph, still discussing the original contract position, he says, �But the contract, on which government is founded, is said [by the champions of this position] to be the original contract.� (Par. 8) That position, he says in the last sentence of the paragraph, �is not justified by history or experience, in any age or country of the world.� (Par. 8)

Rather, he says in the first sentence of the next, �Almost all governments, which exist at present or of which there remains any record in story, have been founded originally either on usurpation or conquest, or both, without any pretense of a fair consent or voluntary subjection of the people.� (Par. 9)

And in paragraph 20, he concludes his treatment of the �original contract� position by saying, �My intention here is not to exclude the consent of the people from being one just foundation of government. Where it has place, it is surely the best and most sacred of any. I only contend that it has very seldom had place in any degree, and never almost in its full extent, and that, therefore, some other foundation of government must also be admitted.�

In the course of his discussion, he agrees that an individual�s residence in a civil society and his enjoyment of the benefits provided by that society signify �assent,� which means unexpressed or implicit consent. Locke also says this in his discussion of the status of people born into a civil society or settling in a civil society. These people were not there at the beginning; their obligation to the laws and government are based on their assent or implicit agreement. In the sense of this general, fundamental agreement of people to live cooperatively, a society is based on "consent," but this is not the argument of the champions of an "original contract."

The paragraphs after paragraph 20—did any of you take a look at anything beyond the assigned paragraphs?—give a similar treatment to the divine right party (the Tories).

I hope this helps your understanding. You must always be careful in argumentative writing to distinguish the position of the writer from the positions that he is carefully and completely, if he is a good writer, presenting for debate. I think a number of you missed this.

Anyway, I will email you your paper and paragraph grades on Monday. I must now continue with my fun �Paper Grading� weekend. Stay safe. Take walks.

For the Week of March 30th:

Some relevant terms from last Friday's class about Cohn's book, The Pursuit of the Millennium—expanded and annotated:

See also Bernard McGinn, Visions of the End: Apocalyptic Traditions in the Middle Ages

Reading assignments: Please read the scanned material from Norman Cohn's book that I sent you by Friday. The Cohn material is the "Introduction" and Chapter One of his book The Pursuit of the Millennium, which is one of the history classics of the twentieth century. Pay close attention to the five characteristics of millenarian "salvation" that Cohn adduces. These are also listed as the third approach to ideology on the "Approaches to Ideology" page. (Completion of the Communist Manifesto was due by Tuesday, the 31st.

The writing assignment, due Wednesday noon. As you did last week (scroll down to see the instructions under the red banner "One-Paragraph Emailed Responses" below), please email me a one-paragraph response to the individualized question below. There is one difference this time: since you may be using different editions (though they are all the same translation, oddly enough), page number citations will not work. Therefore, you must make a quotation from the text the central evidence for your answer. Don't try to cite it: I can track it down in the text using the "Find" tool. Limit your quote to one sentence of whatever length. There may be a lot of evidence, but that is why I ask for only "some of"—namely, one sentence— of evidence in your answer. (Hint: there is evidence for each.)

As I indicated during the Zoom meetings on Friday, this exercise requires you to apply different elements of Richard Watkins's concept of ideology to Marx's Communist Manifesto. Search through the whole Manifesto when you look for evidence, or the lack of it, for your answer.

  1. Maggie: In the Manifesto, does Marx suggest that life here on earth can be perfected or made radically better by certain human knowledge and actions? What is (some of) the evidence (=quote from the text) for your answer? If there is no evidence of this element, is there evidence that Marx rejects this possibility? What is this evidence?
  2. Rakan: In the Manifesto, does Marx suggest that a particular "people" or group/collectivity will benefit from the progress of human history? If so, who is this "people" and what is (some of) the evidence (=quote from the text) for your answer? If there is no evidence of this element, is there evidence that Marx rejects this possibility? What is this evidence?
  3. Gavin: In the Manifesto, does Marx suggest a "utopian or apocalyptic" social and human order will result from the revolution? What is (some of) the evidence (=quote from the text) for your answer? If there is no evidence of this element, is there evidence that Marx rejects this possibility? What is this evidence?
  4. Fifi: In the Manifesto, does Marx argue that human history or the human condition is a struggle between two opposing groups, "us" and "them," or "friend" and "enemy"? What is (some of) the evidence (=quote from the text) for your answer? If there is no evidence of this element, is there evidence that Marx rejects this possibility? What is this evidence?
  5. Justice: In the Manifesto, does Marx suggest that the future will be much better than the past and present for mankind? What is (some of) the evidence (=quote from the text) for your answer? If there is no evidence of this element, is there evidence that Marx rejects this possibility? What is this evidence?
  6. Yasmine: In the Manifesto, does Marx suggest that life here on earth can be perfected or made radically better by certain human knowledge and actions? What is (some of) the evidence (=quote from the text) for your answer? If there is no evidence of this element, is there evidence that Marx rejects this possibility? What is this evidence?
  7. Luis: In the Manifesto, does Marx suggest that a particular "people" or group/collectivity will benefit from the progress of human history? If so, who is this "people" and what is (some of) the evidence (=quote from the text) for your answer? If there is no evidence of this element, is there evidence that Marx rejects this possibility? What is this evidence?
  8. Giancarlo: In the Manifesto, does Marx suggest a "utopian or apocalyptic" social and human order will result from the revolution? What is (some of) the evidence (=quote from the text) for your answer? If there is no evidence of this element, is there evidence that Marx rejects this possibility? What is this evidence?
  9. Nebay: In the Manifesto, does Marx argue that human history or the human condition is a struggle between two opposing groups, "us" and "them," or "friend" and "enemy"? What is (some of) the evidence (=quote from the text) for your answer? If there is no evidence of this element, is there evidence that Marx rejects this possibility? What is this evidence?
  10. Sara: In the Manifesto, does Marx suggest that the future will be much better than the past and present for mankind? What is (some of) the evidence (=quote from the text) for your answer? If there is no evidence of this element, is there evidence that Marx rejects this possibility? What is this evidence?
  11. Ruhna: In the Manifesto, does Marx suggest that life here on earth can be perfected or made radically better by certain human knowledge and actions? What is (some of) the evidence (=quote from the text) for your answer? If there is no evidence of this element, is there evidence that Marx rejects this possibility? What is this evidence?
  12. Mustapha: In the Manifesto, does Marx suggest that a particular "people" or group/collectivity will benefit from the progress of human history? If so, who is this "people" and what is (some of) the evidence (=quote from the text) for your answer? If there is no evidence of this element, is there evidence that Marx rejects this possibility? What is this evidence?
  13. Carly: In the Manifesto, does Marx suggest a "utopian or apocalyptic" social and human order will result from the revolution? What is (some of) the evidence (=quote from the text) for your answer? If there is no evidence of this element, is there evidence that Marx rejects this possibility? What is this evidence?
  14. Anthony: In the Manifesto, does Marx argue that human history or the human condition is a struggle between two opposing groups, "us" and "them," or "friend" and "enemy"? What is (some of) the evidence (=quote from the text) for your answer? If there is no evidence of this element, is there evidence that Marx rejects this possibility? What is this evidence?
  15. Blake: In the Manifesto, does Marx suggest that the future will be much better than the past and present for mankind? What is (some of) the evidence (=quote from the text) for your answer? If there is no evidence of this element, is there evidence that Marx rejects this possibility? What is this evidence?
  16. Melat: In the Manifesto, does Marx suggest that life here on earth can be perfected or made radically better by certain human knowledge and actions? What is (some of) the evidence (=quote from the text) for your answer? If there is no evidence of this element, is there evidence that Marx rejects this possibility? What is this evidence?

If any of you are interested in an extra, totally voluntary Zoom meeting just on the argument of the Communist Manifesto, let me know.

For Friday, March 27th:

I have received your papers and will get to work correcting them. I have decided not to go to campus until sometime next month, so I will not have access to my office printer. This will make the reading and grading process slower. But I'll get your grades back to you within the next two weeks.

I am working on an acceptable and reasonable alternative to the 75-minute in-class exam that I had planned for the Locke material we studied, but I have not finalized anything yet. At this point, I can only say that the "exam" on Locke will take place in April (and no, it will not be as rigorous as it usually is).

That leaves us with the next and last third of the course: the study of political "ideologies." We have two goals for the next five weeks: (1) reading several examples of political ideologies and (2) learning and using two or three different approaches or concepts of political ideologies to identify what makes ideologies different from theories or philosophies. I have posted here an edition of the Communist Manifesto in case you did not buy the Pathfinder Press edition, and I have scanned copies of all of the remaining readings. I will send the scans to you as needed.

We will start this on Friday:

Study Questions for the Manifesto:

  1. In the first section of the Manifesto, "Bourgeois and Proletarians," what theory of history does Marx present?
  2. Who or what are the bourgeoisie?
  3. Who or what are the proletarians or the proletariat?
  4. What is the foundation of all history, politics, and civilization?
  5. What do Marx and Engels expect to happen soon?
  6. In the second section, "Proletarians and Communists," who are the communists and what is their relation to the proletarians?
  7. What is the problem with "property"? all property?
  8. What is the foundation of human culture?
  9. What is the proletarian programme (to borrow the Brit spelling)?
  10. In the third section of the Manifesto, "Socialist and Communit Literature," what is Marx's main criticism of all other socialist or communist theories?
  11. A "manifesto" is a statement in support of a call to action: what is the call to action in Marx's manifesto? (Section four of the Manifesto).

For the Class of Friday, March 20th and Tuesday, March 24th:

Here is an online edition of Second Treatise if you did not bring your hard copy with you when you left MU for Spring Break.

Here, also, are the other readings that include the assignments we had for Locke:

Rousseau's social contract

Some study questions for the assigned Hume (and Locke, Hobbes, and Rousseau) readings:

For the Week of March 2d:

For Friday, bring the Hobbes excerpts from chapters 16, 17, 18, and 20, as well as the handout I gave you on Tuesday from Rousseau's Social Contract. We will devote the class to a comparison contrast of the three philosophers' concepts of the social conrtract: the formulas and the purposes of each.

For Tuesday, please read (1) these excerpts from Hobbes's Leviathan, chs. 16, 17, 20 and (2) sections 123 to 155 of Locke's Second Treatise, pages 71-85 of the Sigmund textbook. This material is central to our study of Locke and will find its way onto the mid-term exam.

Epicurus on justice and promises

These are some of the basic issues found in the assigned readings. We have discussed these questions more than once in class. Locke, in particular, repeatedly addresses several of these issue in the

For the Week of February 24th:

For Friday, please read §§57-62 (pages 40-43 of the textbook) and §§86-99 (53-60) of Locke's Second Treatise. Proceeding through the Second Treatise is our first priority. We will be comparing Locke's social contract formula with Hobbes's and Rousseau's next week, but you may get a head start if you wish. Hobbes, Leviathan chapters 16-17 and Rousseau's Social Contract, Book I, preface and chapters 1 & 6.

The first few paragraphs or sections assigned deal with the problem of children. The next larger group of sections explain his theory of the formation of a civil or political society. Study questions 1-5 and 7-10 take you through the assigned readings so far. Particularly ask:

For Tuesday, please read Locke's Second Treatise pages 17-27 (§§ 1-24) in the Paul Sigmund/Norton Critical Edition text. We will read more of the Second Treatise on Friday.

We now turn to the study of John Locke's Second Treatise of Government, and some related material and critical essays. The Treatise, one of the world's most influential works of political theory, and John Locke's relation to it is also wrapped in mystery, just like Machiavelli and his Prince. We will begin with the excerpts from Peter Laslett's "Introduction" to his edition of the Two Treatises of Government that I handed out on Tuesday. Extra copies are in the rack on the wall outside my office door. Please read it.

For the Week of February 17th:

Writing Workshop: Well, I do indeed have another faculty meeting on Wednesday, but let's have a short workshop anyway at 2:00pm in our regular classroom (it will get me out of the faculty meeting early, always a good thing). Note: if any of you attending the workshop arrive at the room ahead of me and find the room occupied, please scout out a vacant room in Gailhac so that we can meet.

Please note these one-page paper instructions: I must ask you to send your papers to me as a Microsoft Word or PDF document—not Google Docs (and stay away from everything "Canvas" for my courrses). Google Docs and my home computer do not get along.

The subject of Hume's essays and of Locke's, Hobbes's, and Rousseau's social contract theories was the basic modern question of the source of political authority: "Who (or what) gives you the right to tell me what to do?" Focusing just on the first twenty paragraphs of Hume's essay "Of the Original Contract" and on the previously assigned readings from Locke's Second Treatise, write a one-page (300 word) paper on the following topic:

As I indicated in my email earlier today, the previously posted schedule must be adjusted—massaged, I think, is the current language—in light of the online scheduling restrictions. On Friday, I will give you the details for the one-page paper, which will be due on Tuesday, March 24th. It will focus on a specific question from the Hume essays as applied to the Locke readings.

Accordingly, the assignment for this Friday, March 20th, will focus primarily on the readings already assigned from Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau with just a bit from Hume's essay "Of the Origin of Government" and on their conceptions of the social contract in particular.

One-Paragraph Emailed Responses

Please send me a one-paragraph (three or four sentences only) answer to the question assigned to you below by 11:00am on Friday, March 20th. All questions are based on readings already assigned this semester. These assigned readings are the only materials that you may use to answer the questions. I will use Google and Turnitin if I suspect that another source was used. I have tried to frame each question so narrowly and specifically that it will be easier for you to simply review the readings than to (1) Google the question, (2) write down the Internet answer, and (3) get a zero for doing so. (Everything I do, I do for you:) Every faculty member that I have talked to has said that the principal problem with online written assignments is plagiarism—cheating. I don't want to have to take you to a virtual Academic Integrity panel.

I will grade these short assignments on a three-point—four-point, actually—scale: "0" (zero credit) if it is not turned in on time; "1" (=55%) if it is turned in but not acceptable; "2" (=75%) if it is acceptable; and "3" (=95%) if it is good, more than acceptable. The grade will be based on (1) reasonable evidence that you read and used only the assigned materials for your answer (no Wikipedia or other Internet sources) and (2) that you demonstrate a good understanding of what you have written. Evidence that you have read the material is based on the one or two citations to the readings that you put in your paragraph. Evidence that you understand what you write and are not merely reciting words is based on whether your paragraph makes sense and reasonably interprets the readings that you are using.

When you quote text in your answer, you may quote no more than a dozen (12) words total; paraphrasing is better. To cite the sources of your answer (you must cite sources), we will keep it really simple. Cite Locke by section number in parentheses—for example, (sec. 95)—Hobbes and Rousseau by chapter number—for examples (ch. 16) or (ch. 6)—Hume by paragraph number—(par. 5). Place this parenthetical citation at the end of your sentence. Again, we're only talking about three or four sentences here.

Send me your paragraph as part of the body of your email, not as an attachment to your email. The importance of these little details are magnified with the online format. Please follow directions!

  1. Maggie: In Locke's formula for a social contract described in Second Treatise, §§87-97, (1) what do the individuals give up on order to form a civil society? (2) What do they get in return? (three or four sentences based on §§87-97)
  2. Rakan: In Hobbes's formula for a social contract described in Leviathan, chapters 13, 17, & 18, (1) what do the individuals give up on order to form a civil society? (2) What do they get in return? (three or four sentences based on chapters 16-18)
  3. Gavin: In Rousseau's formula for a social contract described in The Social Contract, chapters 1, 4, and 6, (1) what do the individuals give up on order to form a civil society? (2) what do they get in return? (three or four sentences based on chapters 1, 4, 6)
  4. Fifi: In Locke's Second Treatise, §§6-21, he describes the "rights" or "freedoms" that men have in a state of nature. In those sections he describes the problems that those rights pose that lead people to want to establish a civil society. (1) Which natural rights do men give up in order to form a civil society? (2) What is the purpose of the civil society that men willingly set up? (three or four sentences based on §§6 to 21)
  5. Justice: In Hobbes's Leviathan, chapters 13, 14, and 17, he describes the "right" or "freedom" that men have in a state of nature. In those chapters he describes the problems that freedom poses that lead people to want to establish a civil society. (1) What natural right or freedom does man give up in order to form a civil society? (2) What is the purpose of the civil society that men willingly set up? (three or four sentences based on sections 13, 14, and 17)
  6. Yasmine: In chapters 1, 4, & 6 of The Social Contract, Rousseau explains what it means to be a human being—the essential human quality. (1) According to Rousseau, why is his particular formuula essential for men living in a social environment? (2) What and how does his contract make it possible to live appropriately in society? (three or four sentences based on chapters 1, 4, and 6)
  7. Luis: In Hume's short essay "Of the Origin of Government" (not "Of the Original Contract"), he sketches the basic reason(s) for civil society (or "governed society," we might say). (1) According to Hume, why do men find government necessary? (2) How are governors first established? Who are they? (three or four sentences based on the eight paragraphs of "Of the Origin of Government")
  8. Giancarlo: According to Locke, in §§123-131 of his Second Treatise, (1) what are the essential purposes or functions that government should perform? (2) What is this "common good" that Locke refers to? (three or four sentences based on §§123-131)
  9. Nebay: In Hobbes's Leviathan, chapters 13, 16, and 17, he describes the fundamental function that the common power that men set up is supposed to perform. (1) According to Hobbes, what is this basic function? (2) Where does this government, this "sovereign" get its power? (three or four sentences based on the three cited chapters of )
  10. Sara: In §§134-142 of the Second Treatise, Locke describes the limits of government authority. (1) According to Locke in these sections, what may the legislative authority of society legitimately do? (2) What may the legislative power not do? (three or four sentences based on §§134-142)
  11. Ruhna: In Locke's Second Treatise (§§22-24) and in Rousseau's Social Contract, chapter 4, the authors discuss slavery. They approach the subject differently. (1) What is Locke's main point about slaviery in §§22-24? (2) How does Rousseau's discussion mainly differ from Locke's? (three or four sentences based on the cited portions of Second Treatise and Social Contract)
  12. Mustapha: In Locke's formula for a social contract described in Second Treatise, §§87-97, (1) what do the individuals give up on order to form a civil society? (2) What/who is the supreme authority in the society that results from their original contract? (three or four sentences based on §§87-97)
  13. Carly: In Hobbes's formula for a social contract described in Leviathan, chapters 13, 17, & 18, (1) what do the individuals give up on order to form a civil society? (1) What/who is the supreme authority in the society that results from their original contract? (three or four sentences based on chapters 16-18)
  14. Anthony: In Rousseau's formula for a social contract described in The Social Contract, chapters 1, 4, and 6, (1) what do the individuals give up on order to form a civil society? (2) what/who is the supreme authority in the society that results from their original contract? (three or four sentences based on chapters 1, 4, 6)
  15. Blake: In Locke's Second Treatise, §§6-21, he describes the "rights" or "freedoms" that men have in a state of nature. In those sections he describes the problems that those rights pose that lead people to want to establish a civil society. (1) Which natural rights do men give up in order to form a civil society? (2) What is the purpose of the civil society that men willingly set up? (three or four sentences based on §§6 to 21)
  16. Melat: In Hobbes's Leviathan, chapters 13, 14, and 17, he describes the "right" or "freedom" that men have in a state of nature. In those chapters he describes the problems that freedom poses that lead people to want to establish a civil society. (1) What natural right or freedom does man give up in order to form a civil society? (2) What is the purpose of the civil society that men willingly set up? (three or four sentences based on sections 13, 14, and 17)

Whew! That was a lot of work.

Here are links to all of the readings that you might need for Friday's assignment except, of course, the John Locke textbook.

If you did not take that one home with you (shame!),

Paper Question/Topic: In the first twenty paragraphs of the essay "Of the Original Contract," what is Hume's main criticism of Locke's (and others') social contract theory of political authority? What can be said in Locke's defense against Hume's criticism?

Rules/Guidelines for One-Page Papers.

  1. The deadline is the beginning of class on Tuesday, March 24th. This means you must email the final draft to me as an attachment by 11:15am. I will be printing the attachments in order to grade them (my eyesight problems), so the one-page attachment must be something easily downloadable for me at home—Word or PDF documents. Not Google Docs. If I can't print it, I can;t grade it.
  2. NO TITLE PAGE!! Put only your Marymount Student I.D. number—NOT YOUR NAME— AT THE TOP OF THE PAPER. I STILL WANT COMPLETE ANONYMITY. This is why the paper must be sent as an attachment: so I can de-tach it from your email and print it as a document identifiable only by your Student ID number at the top of the page. If you violate this anonymity rule, I will not accept the paper and you will receive a zero.
  3. The absolute limit of your paper is one page—no more than 300 words. I will not read anything that is more than 300 words. Use an eleven or twelve point font, preferably Times New Roman, Univers, Garamond, Calibri, or CG Times, black ink, double-spaced, and the default page margins: typically one inch all around.
  4. The only sources to be used are the assigned readings that are cited in the Question/Topic—Locke's Second Treatise and Hume's essay "Of the Original Contract, paragraphs 1 to 20. No other primary or secondary materials—written or oral, internet (no Wikipedia!!!), paper, or personal—may be used or consulted. This is essentially a closed-book exam. Failure to follow this rule will result in a zero for the paper and a report to Academic Integrity for plagiarism.
  5. Use the footnote format that I explain below. You need no less than four—and no more than five— for this paper. You should use Ibid. for subsequent references to the same source.
  6. Do not begin the paper with a restatement of the topic. You do not have enough space for wasted words, so get right into a thesis statement and your supporting statements.
  7. I will ratchet up the grading of the papers: (1) the grade on this first paper/writing sample is based upon (a) following these directions, (b) making a good faith effort, and (c) reflecting the readings in your argument; (2) the grade on the second paper will count the writing & content equally so a paper with lousy writng but good content (or vice-versa) may or may not pass, and (3) the writing and content counted together on the third paper, so a paper with more than three errors will fail regardless of content. PROOFREAD! PROOFREAD! PROOFREAD!

The purpose of the references is to enable me or any reader to find the exact passage you are quoting or paraphrasing or otherwise referring to. For this paper there are two possible sources for you to cite: (1) Hume's essay and (2) Locke's Second Treatise. Cite them as I do below.

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: Machiavelli said, "Everyone ought to go to church each Sunday."1 PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE GET THIS SEQUENCE CORRECT: the FINAL MARK OF PUNCTUATION, then the END QUOTATION MARK, and then the FOOTNOTE. (Always end your footnote with a period.) Here are sample footnotes for Strauss and Machiavelli:

1David Hume, Of the Original Contract, par. 2. (Cite Hume's essay by paragraph number, as found at the beginning of each paragraph in the excerpt handed out and linked here.)

2Ibid. (A reference to the exact same source—author, title, the location in the text—in the very next footnote. "Ibid." refers back to the source in the previous footnote.)

3Ibid., par. 3. (Reference to the same source, but a different paragraph.)

4John Locke, Second Treatise, sec. 87. (Cite Locke's work by section number.)

5Hume, par. 19. (Reference back to an earlier-cited source but one that was not cited in the immediately preceding footnote.)

The other punctuation to be mastered is the introduction of quotes. If you introduce them using the word "that" (what Turabian calls run-in quotes), 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 societies is the history of class struggles." Here, a comma follows the verb "said," and the first word of the sentence is capitalized. The content of the quotes must be absolutely perfect; proofread the quotes several times to make sure. This and the preceding footnote protocol was covered in the writing workshop held on March 4th.

One further note: do not use the noun "human" as a synonym for "man" unless you are specifically distinguishing between a human trait (note the adjective here) and a divine or animal trait. The noun "human" implies this distinction. In this discipline, the noun "man" or "human being" is the standard reference in works of political theory and philosophy. Also, use the word "divine" as an adjective only: it is not a synonym for "God or "a god."

MID-TERM EXAM on Tuesday. Exam will be held in our regular classroom.

The exam will focus on Machiavelli's Prince, of course. The questions may ask you specifically to evaluate, say, Leo Strauss's criticism of Machiavelli. You must be familiar with the main points of each of the critical readings. Or a question may ask you to compare Machiavelli's ideas to those of Aristotle, Aquinas, Hobbes, or Locke as presented in the assigned readings.

In other words, you should be familiar with all of the assigned readings and be able to show me that you have read the material that is relevant to each question.

For the Week of February 10th:

Please read the article in our textbook by Isaiah Berlin on the "Question of Machiavelli," pp. 206-236, for Friday.

Please read the handout by Garrett Mattingly (Machiavelli's Prince: Political Science or Political Satire?) for Tuesday.

Both of these articles are longer than the ones assigned so far in the course, so leave yourself enough time to read them. They will be prominent on the exam, February 18th.

The exam on Tuesday, February 18, will consist of two or three essay questions that will cover all of the assigned readings since the beginning of the semester. No identifications, just essays.

For the Week of February 3d:

Following the schedule that I laid out earlier (below), we will discuss the Wolin article on the "economy of violence" on Friday.

I'll get your papers back to you next week.

For Tuesday, your one-page papers are due. In class we will discuss the short Leo Strauss essay on Machiavelli that I handed out. (Extra copy in the rack on the wall outside my office.) You must read the essay to write the paper.

The assignments for the next couple of weeks are as follows (assuming no snow or freezing rain):

For the Week of January 27th:

For Friday, please read the rest of The Prince, the main emphasis of which is the personal characteristics that a prince should have, according to Machiavelli. Note his famous description of the fox and the lion, and his discussion of skill and fortuna towards the end of the book.

For Tuesday, please read Robert Adams "Historical Introduction," pp. vii-xvi of the required Adams text. I put a couple of copies of the Intro on reserve in the library.

As I mentioned in class, a more comprehensive account of the period of Italian history in which Machiavelli lived and worked is presented in Phillip Bobbitt's book The Shield of Achilles. Bobbitt argues that changes in the methods of warfare have a profound effect on the constitutional structures of states. He discusses the events in Italy which, along with other causes, led to the development of the modern "state" in chapter 6 "From Princes to Princely States." I highly recommend it.

James MacGregor Burns's multivolume biography of FDR is entitled The Lion and the Fox, and William Manchester's biography of Churchill is entitled The Last Lion.

If historical fiction, in print or in old movies, is more your speed, you may be interested in Samuel Shellabarger's Prince of Foxes, the book or the movie. A lot of fun.

I will try to schedule the longer readings to be due on Tuesdays, and the shorter on Fridays, but now you have all of the planned assignments, so read the ones that are in the text ahead of time.

For the Week of January 20th:

For Friday please read (1) the short handout on the reasons that three "Modern" phbilosophers, Francis Bacon, Rene Descartes, and Thomas Hobbes, rejected the classical and classical-religious philosophical traditions that we briefly surveyed on Tuesday and that the Renaissance humanists like Petrarch, according to Hankins, represented, and (2) the first thirteen chapters of Machiavelli's Prince.

If you have already gotten the required Norton Critical Edition (second edition) textbook, by all means use the translation of the Prince that is in that text. If you have not yet received your text, you may use this translation (or any other) of Machiavelli's Prince, which is not as good, but perfectly readable. The assignment for next Tuesday will be the introductory essay in the Norton text, so be sure to get your copy by the weekend.

Italy A.D. 1453

Italy A.D. 1494

For Tuesday, please read the handout with excerpts from Aristotle and St. Thomas. An extra copies are in the rack on my office door or you can download the excerpts linked here. Try to relate the subjects that these two authors discuss in the excerpts to the concepts and traditions that we discuss this Friday.

As you read through the excerpts from Aristotle and St. Thomas, representatives of the Classical and Classical-Christian traditions respectively, answer these questions:

  1. According to Aristotle, in the Physics, does it appear that the world in which we live is simply the result of a random collision of atoms, as the Epicureans maintain, or is it a world full of purpose(s), full of meaning: that is, a teleological cosmos?
  2. Does "nature," the part of reality that is not artifact—i.e., which is not man-made—have a purpose? Do natural things have particular purposes or functions?
  3. Turning to the Nicomachean Ethics, does man have a natural purpose?
  4. What is happiness? Is it related to purpose?
  5. According to Aristotle, what is the purpose of government? of laws? of politics?
  6. Is government (the polis or city-state) part of the natural order? Is it a human artifact?
  7. Turning to St. Thomas, who discusses politics and political theory in the language of "law" (=order), is there a purposive order to the natural world? What does he call this overarching principle of cosmic order? What is its source?
  8. According to St. Thomas, what is the "natural law"? Who makes this law?
  9. What does St. Thomas call the particular rules that are made for particular situations? Who makes these laws?
  10. What is the purpose of Divine law? How does it differ from eternal, natural, and human law?

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 follow 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 that are provided.

For the Class of Friday, January 10th

Please read (1) Soulcraft and Statecraft, which I handed out in class (extra copy is in the rack on the wall outside my office door—Room 1018 Rowley— and (2) the Introduction to Political Theory, which we read first semester and which I handed out to those students who were not in the class last semester.

We'll go over the "Introduction" first as briefly as possible, and then try to spend as much time as possible on the "Soulcraft" article.

I will give you full credit (five points) regardless of content and writing if you follow these directions. YOU MUST READ THESE DIRECTIONS!

Paper Question: Is Leo Strauss's opinion of Machiavelli correct?

  1. Michael Lind on the "Managerial Elites". Compare to Christopher Lasch, The Revolt of the Elites
  2. Fontaine and Frederick, "The Autocrat's New Tool Kit"
  3. Gamerman, "The Dystopian Blues"
  4. Christopher DeMuth, "declarative government"
  5. David Runciman, China's Authoritarian Challenge to Democracy
  6. Friedrich and Brzezinski's "Totalitarian Syndrome".
  7. Fontaine and Frederick, "The Autocrat's New Tool Kit"

  8. Gamerman, "The Dystopian Blues"

  9. Galston, Democracy 2018

Compare and contrast it with the following:

The material below is from previous semesters of POL 210 and 211. We will be using some of it this semester. Feel free to browse through it.

Mid-Term Exam. The exam will be a four-question essay exam that will focus on four of the following topics that we studied over the past month:

  1. Locke's State of Nature: §§1-24 and Hobbes's Leviathan, chapters 13 and 14.
  2. Locke's Theory of Property : §§25-51
  3. Locke's Theory of civil society, the social contract: §§57-62 and §§86-99; Hobbes's Leviathan, chapters 16 & 17; Hume's essay "Of the Original Contract," paragraphs 1-20
  4. Locke's explanation of the structure of government: §§132-168
  5. Locke's theory of the Right of Revolution: §§175-230 and Hobbes's Leviathan, chapter 18 (chapter 21 is also very relevant, but was not assigned. You might want to take a look at it.)
  6. Locke's influence in the American founding era: Dworetz's excerpt in the Norton text

For the Class of March 27th:

As I indicated, we will tie up loose ends on Tuesday: (1) the assigned excerpt from David Hume's "Of the Original Contract"; (2) the Dworetz excerpt in the Locke text, "Locke, Liberalism, and the American Revolution"; and (3) the excerpt from Peter Laslett's introduction in John Locke: Two Treatises of Government that I handed out a few weeks ago (there might be a copy or two in the rack on my office door). We will probably discuss them in that order.

The exam will be on Friday, April 6th. Because you have over a week to prepare, the exam will consist of four essay questions that are more specific than the questions on the first exam. The lack of class discussion has me wondering about how well you are studying the readings.

For the Week of March 19th:

Well, this white stuff has eliminated a writing workshop today (Wednesday) and appointment times for paper reviews. The next paper, therefore, will be assigned after the mid-term.

The subject for Friday will be Locke's theory of rebellion or revolution, found in §§175-230 of the Second Treatise. For Friday, focus particularly on §§175-180, 186, 187, 190, 195; 197-198; 199, 202-204, 207; 211-221; and especially on §§223-230. You should note definitions of the major concepts discussed in these pages: the rights of conquerors (compare to Hobbes, chapter 20 and to chapter 14); "usurpation," "tyranny," justified rebellion.

Declaration of Independence

We will continue with Locke's Second Treatise. I want to cover three more general topics (##4, 5, & 6 in the list below) before the mid-term exam on April 6th:

  1. State of Nature: §§1-24
  2. Theory of Property : §§25-51
  3. Theory of civil society, the social contract: §§57-62 and §§86-99
  4. Structure of Government: §§132-168
  5. Right of Revolution: §§175-230
  6. Consistency of political theory with Locke's epistemology: Laslett's Introduction

The Norton edition does not include the relevant sections of Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding necessary to cover the last topic (the consistency of Locke's political theory with his epistemology). We will use Laslett's commentary in place of the Essay.

For Tuesday, please read §§132-168. In particular, focus on the following sections: 132 to 135, 142, 143 to 148, 149 to 155, 156 to 161, and 164 to 166. There are many familiary principles of American government and constitutional law in these sections.

For the Week of March 5th:

For Friday, please (1) review the chapters of Rousseau's Social Contract that I assigned for Tuesday and read David Hume's short essay, "Of the Original Contract," paragraphs 1-20, available on this link.

The assignment for Tuesday is the same as for Friday PLUS this material from Hobbes and Rousseau on social contracts: Hobbes, Leviathan chapters 16-17 and Rousseau's Social Contract, Book I, prefatory paragraph and chapters 1 & 6. Use the links on my main webpage for these readings. The links are under "Western Political Concepts I & II Readings."

For Tuesday, please read (1) the handout by Peter Laslett on Locke's Two Treatises and (2) pages 28-39 of the Second Treatise on Locke's concept of property, which has been an extremely important theory in Western thought, including Marx's thought.

I will hand back the papers and discuss them briefly as well. If you have never met with me in POL 210 to go over a paper, you must sign up to meet with me over the next couple of weeks to review this paper. There is a sign-up sheet on my office door with available appointment times for this week and next.

For the Week of February 19th:

For Friday, please read Locke's Second Treatise pages 17-27 (§§ 1-24) in the Sigmund/Norton Critical Edition text. We will read more of the Second Treatise on Tuesday, along with a handout by Peter Laslett that I will give you on Friday.

Cosmology in the News

Welcome to the course! POL 211 always addresses the question of authority, or "What gives you the right to tell me what to do?" Though this question is inherent in the very concept of politics, it has been particularly troublesome in the modern era—the period of Western history beginning in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. This period of history saw the Epicurean tradition become the dominant tradition in Western political thought, but as with any historical period, modernity is also heir to what has gone before. Thus, the Classical, Classical-Christian, and especially the Esoteric responses to the question of authority are still part of the discussion.

This semester we will be focusing on three different topics: (1) the influential thought of the earliest modern, or perhaps pre-modern, political thinker Niccolo Machiavelli and, in particular, his most famous work The Prince; (2) the political thought of one of the two fathers of modern liberalism, John Locke (John Stuart Mill was the other); and (3) the nature of the political religions called "ideologies."

Welcome to the course! POL 210 is a course that studies some of the basic concepts of Western political thinkers from Plato through Hobbes. The purpose is to help you understand the fundamental questions that our greatest political theorists and philosophers address in their writings and to indicate how several great traditions of philosophy answer those questions. All of the assignments for the course will be posted on this site, usually on the morning after the last class day.

The Final Exam will be in Rowley, G221 (computer lab), on Tuesday, December 10th at noon.

The ninety-minute final will consist of three questions, all of which essentially ask you to pull together the five fundamental conceptions in each tradition and to show me how the five fit together within that tradition.

The primary readings for the course are, of course, available on the "Readings for Western Political ConceptsI" link, which is an excellent source for reviewing the material.

For the one-page paper:
  1. Here is Hume's essay, "On the Origin of Government."
  2. Analyze it according to the approach to ideologies of either Richard Watkins or Norman Cohn, and
  3. Determine whether or not Hume's theory is ideological in nature.

There are a couple of directions that you should follow in this paper:

Rules/Guidelines for One-Page Papers: You Just Did This a Month Ago and You Did It Pretty Well. Do It Again!

  1. The deadline is Friday, May 1st, at 11:00am. This means you must email the final draft to me as a Microsoft word attachment by 11:00am. I will be printing the attachments in order to grade them (my eyesight problems), so the one-page attachment must be something easily downloadable for me at home—Word or PDF documents. Not Google Docs! If I can't print it, I can't grade it.
  2. NO TITLE PAGE!! Put only your Marymount Student I.D. number—NOT YOUR NAME— AT THE TOP OF THE PAPER. I STILL WANT COMPLETE ANONYMITY. This is why the paper must be sent as an attachment: so I can de-tach it from your email and print it as a document identifiable only by your Student ID number at the top of the page. If you violate this anonymity rule, I will not accept the paper and you will receive a zero.
  3. The absolute limit of your paper is one page—no more than 300 words. I will not read anything that is more than 300 words. Use an eleven or twelve point font, preferably Times New Roman, Univers, Garamond, Calibri, or CG Times, black ink, double-spaced, and the default page margins: typically one inch all around.
  4. The only sources to be used are the assigned readings that are cited in the Question/Topic—Hume's essay "Of the Origin of Government" and whichever approach you choose—Watkins's or Cohn's—from the "Approaches to Political Ideologies" link that we have been using for the past month. (DO NOT CITE THE LINK AS A SOURCE!!!) No other primary or secondary materials—written or oral, internet (no Wikipedia!!!), paper, or personal—may be used or consulted. This is essentially a closed-book exam. Failure to follow this rule will result in a zero for the paper and a report to Academic Integrity for plagiarism.
  5. Use the footnote format that I explain below. You need at least five for this paper. You should use Ibid. for subsequent references to the same source.
  6. Do not begin the paper with a restatement of the topic. You do not have enough space for wasted words, so get right into a thesis statement and your supporting statements.
  7. I will ratchet up the grading of the papers: (1) the grade on the first paper/writing sample was based upon (a) following these directions, (b) making a good faith effort, and (c) reflecting the readings in your argument; (2) the grade on the second paper counted the writing & content equally so a paper with lousy writng but good content (or vice-versa) may or may not pass, and (3) the writing and content on this paper will count together on this third paper, so a paper with more than three typos or significant grammatical/punctuation errors will fail regardless of content. PROOFREAD! PROOFREAD! PROOFREAD!

The purpose of the references is to enable me or any reader to find the exact passage you are quoting or paraphrasing or otherwise referring to. For this paper there is only one source for you to cite: Hume's essay.

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: Machiavelli said, "Everyone ought to go to church each Sunday."1 PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE GET THIS SEQUENCE CORRECT: the FINAL MARK OF PUNCTUATION, then the END QUOTATION MARK, and then the FOOTNOTE. (Always end your footnote with a period.) Here are sample footnotes for Strauss and Machiavelli:

1David Hume, "Of the Origin of Government," par. 2. (Cite Hume's essay by paragraph number, as found at the beginning of each paragraph in the copy linked above.)

2Ibid. (A reference to the exact same source—author, title, the location in the text—in the very next footnote. "Ibid." refers back to the source in the previous footnote.)

That's all you have to cite. Just Hume's essay. Nothing else,. Do not cite the elements of Watkins's or Cohn's concept even if you quote them.

The other punctuation to be mastered is the introduction of quotes. If you introduce them using the word "that" (what Turabian calls run-in quotes), 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 societies is the history of class struggles." Here, a comma follows the verb "said," and the first word of the sentence is capitalized. The content of the quotes must be absolutely perfect; proofread the quotes several times to make sure. This and the preceding footnote protocol was covered in the writing workshop held on March 4th.

One further note: do not use the noun "human" as a synonym for "man" unless you are specifically distinguishing between a human trait (note the adjective here) and a divine or animal trait. The noun "human" implies this distinction. In this discipline, the noun "man" or "human being" is the standard reference in works of political theory and philosophy. Also, use the word "divine" as an adjective only: it is not a synonym for "God or "a god."

For the Week of December 2d—the last week:

For Friday, please hand write a one-page paper on the following topic: Compare and contrast the source of political authority that Thomas Hobbes describes in the excerpts from chapters 16, 17, and 20 of Leviathan that I handed out to the excerpts from Aristotle's Politics, Book One, chapters 1 and 2, that I handed out on November 22d. (Copies of both of these readings are available on the "Readings on Politics" page of the "Readings for Western Political concepts I" link directly below this assignment link.) To pass the assignment, you must follow the rules below, so review them carefully.

Question/Topic: Compare and contrast the fundamental source(s) of political authority that Thomas Hobbes describes in chapters 16, 17, and 20 of Leviathan that I handed out to the excerpts from Aristotle's Politics, Book One, chapters 1 and 2.

Rules/Guidelines for One-Page Papers.

  1. The paper must, of course, be typed and submitted as a hard copy. Nothing handwritten or emailed will be accepted.
  2. The only sources to be used are the assigned readings that are cited in the Question/Topic—no other primary or secondary materials—written or oral, internet, paper, or personal—may be used or consulted. This is essentially a closed-book exam.
  3. The absolute limit is one page—about 250 words. I will not read anything that is not on that one page. Use an eleven or twelve point font, preferably Times New Roman, Univers, Garamond, Calibri, or CG Times, black ink, double-spaced, and the default page margins: typically one inch all around.
  4. The entire paper must fit on one sheet of paper, like this one, which I handed out in class: title page on one side of the sheet of paper, your text and footnotes on the other. Use only your Marymount Student I.D. number—NOT YOUR NAME. YOUR NAME SHOULD NOT APPEAR ANYWHERE ON THE TITLE PAGE OR ANYPLACE ELSE ON THE PAPER. I WANT COMPLETE ANONYMITY. If you violate this anonymity rule, I will not accept the paper and you will receive a zero.
  5. Use the footnote format that I explain below. You need at least four—and no more than six— for this paper. You must use Ibid. correctly.
  6. Do not begin the paper with a restatement of the topic. You do not have enough space for wasted words, so get right into a thesis statement and your supporting statements.
  7. The deadline is the beginning of class on Friday, December 6th. This means you must come to class: do not put it in the rack on my office door. Do not try to give it to me after class. You must come to class and stay until class is over to avoid an unexcused absence. If you cannot make it to class for one reason or another, email the final draft to me by 11:00am and give me a hard copy when you take the final exam.
  8. I will ratchet up the grading of the papers: (1) the grade on the first paper/writing sample was based upon (a) following these directions, (b) making a good faith effort, and (c) reflecting the readings in your argument; (2) the grade on the second paper will count the writing & content equally so a paper with lousy writng but good content (or vice-versa) may or may not pass, and (3) the writing and content counted together on this third paper so a paper with more than three errors will fail regardless of content. PROOFREAD! PROOFREAD! PROOFREAD!

The purpose of the references is to enable me or any reader 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 Eliade and the Frankforts are cited by page number. (3) Passages from Aristotle, Cicero, and St. Augustine are usually to book and part/chapter/section number. (4) Passages from Hobbes's Leviathan are to chapters of teh book. Book numbers in Roman numerals; chapter numbers in Arabic numerals in all these cases, just like in the linked text.

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 the Frankforts, Eliade, Lucretius, Cicero, Epictetus, and St. Augustine, though you will only need to cite Lucretius and Cicero in this paper. Always end your footnote with a period. Here are some samples:

1Aristotle, Politics, I.2.

2Ibid. (A reference to the exact same source—author, title, the location in the text—in the very next footnote. "Ibid." refers back to the source in the previous footnote.)

3Ibid., I.1.

4Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, ch. 16.

5Ibid.

6Aristotle, I.1. (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.)

The other punctuation to be mastered is the introduction of quotes. If you introduce them using the word "that" (what Turabian calls run-in quotes), 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 societies is the history of class struggles." Here, a comma follows the verb "said," and the first word of the sentence is capitalized. The content of the quotes must be absolutely perfect; proofread the quotes several times to make sure.

One further note: do not use the noun "human" as a synonym for "man" unless you are specifically distinguishing between a human trait (note the adjective here) and a divine or animal trait. The noun "human" implies this distinction. In this discipline, the noun "man" or "human being" is the standard reference in works of political theory and philosophy. Also, use the word "divine" as an adjective only: it is not a synonym for "God or "a god."

For Tuesday, please read St. Augustine, City of God, Book XIX. 14, 15, 17, 24, & 26, and St. Thomas, Summa theologica, Question 91 of the "Treatise on Law," which I handed out in class and which is available, with study questions, on the "Politics Readings" page of the "Western Political Concepts I" link on the website. (The copies I handed out did not have chapter 26, which is one paragraph long. It is included in the version on the "Politics Readings" site and will be handed out in class on Tuesday.

For the Class of Tuesday, November 26th:

Please read the excerpts from Aristotle on Classical political theory that I handed out in class. We wil look the Classical tradition first, and then the Epicurean and Christian traditions next week. Given the late Thanksgiving schedule this year and the number of you who might miss tomorrow's class, I will explain the last assigned paper next Tuesday, December 3, and the paper will be due the last day of class, December 6.

Bonus Point Chart

I will also return the graded exams on Tuesday, November 26th.

For the Week of November 18th:

Please read the handout from Book II of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics for Tuesday. (Excerpts on Gnosticism for Friday.)

I am afraid that I will not have your exams finished until Tuesday, November 26th.

For the Week of November 11th:

For Friday, please read chapters 14 and 15 of Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan, sections 4-8 of John Locke's Second Treatise, and Book II, ch. 20, of Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding, all of which is in the handout that I gave you on Tuesday. Extra copies are in the rack on the wall outsidemy office door.

We begin the last third of the semester looking at the ethical and political theories that follow from the earlier conceptioins (ontology, epistemology, and anthropology) of each tradition. We will start again with the Epicurean tradition. For Tuesday, please (1) read and print out for class Epicurus's so-called "Principal Doctrines", which is available with commentary on the "Ethics Readings" page of the "Readings for Western Political Concepts I" link that we have beeen using throughout the semester, and (2) review V. 925-1028 in Lucretius, On the Nature of Things, which was part of the assigned reading for epicurean anthropology. Both assignments are pretty short. Hobbes and Locke for Friday.

For the Week of November 4th:

It looks like neither of the computer labs in Rowley will be open to us on Friday, so we will meet in our regular classroom for the exam on Friday.

FOR THE EXAM: The exam will cover all of the reading assignments since the first exam and will consist of three essay questions, one or two of which will be preceded by quoted passages for you to identify, just like the first exam. As before, bring a couple of black-ink pens and your student ID number.

The material for this exam covered the epistemologies and the philosophical anthropologies of the four traditions: Epicurean, Classical, Classical Christian, and gnostic. You should know:

This is what the class discussions (my lectures) have been about for the last month. Though the focus of the exam will be on epistemology and philosophic anthropology, you can't really talk about either of those unless you refer to the cosmology-ontology of each tradition. We have been discussing that, too, over and over during the past four weeks.

Each essay question will focus only on two or three of the traditions. I will ask you to compare and contrast the epistemologies of different traditions and compare and contrast the philosophic anthropologies of different traditions. I will also ask you to explain how the anthropologies of some of the traditions are rooted in the epistemologies of their traditions. Again, this is precisely what I have been talking about over the past month in class.

For the "boxes" or the "grid" to fill in, you may want to review the "Introduction to Political Theory". Scroll down to footnote #15. The boxes are just below that footnote. POL 210 aims to enable you to fill in all of the boxes by the time we reach the end of the semester.

I will set aside half of my office hour (2:30 to 3:00pm) this afternoon (Wednesday) to answer any specific questions you might have in understanding the readings. I'll be in our regular classroom at 2:30 and if that room is occupied, in my office in Rowley G1018. This is not a review session; I will not provide you with any additional information, but I will be glad to ttry to help you understand some part of the reading that is giving you trouble.

BTW, very good class participation last class in discussing the "Pearl of Great Price." Let's make all the class discussions that active!

The reading assignment for Tuesday is the handout "In Quest of the Priceless Pearl." Please use the study questions on the "Anthropology Readings" page to work your way through this ancient Gnostic story.

Mid-Term on Friday. Three comparison-contrast essay questions and some identification bonus questions like those on the first test. This exam covers the readings on epistemology and anthropology. You should be able to "fill in the boxes"—to identify the positions that each of the four traditions take on these two fundamental conceptions—and to understand how the two conceptions are related to each other (and to the ontologies and cosmologies) in each tradition.

I strongly suggest that you form study groups to discuss the readings and the concepts that we have covered.

For the Week of October 28th:

As I announced in class, there is no new reading for Tuesday. We will review the previously assigned excerpts from Lucretius's On the Nature of Things (assigned for last Tuesday) and especially the excerpts from Book One of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics (assigned for last Friday). The specific assignments are on the "Readings for Western Political Concepts I" page at the "Anthropology Readings" link.

When reviewing this material, you should be able to distinguish between material that describes empirical anthropology—human nature or observable human behavior such as is studied in the social sciences—and material that describes philosophical anthropology—the nature of man or man's place in the cosmos. You must know this for the exam.

You should also pay attention to the writers' views on what constitutes human happiness or felicity. This is a key to their understanding of the nature of man: what is it that gives us the greatest "happiness"?

For the Week of October 21st:

It was good to see some of you stop by at the Open House yesterday!

For Friday, please read the handout of excerpts from Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, Book One. Extra copies are in the rack on the wall outside my iffice, and can be downloaded from the "Anthropology Readings" page (see the yellow highlighted link). We will also continue to discuss the assigned Hobbes and Lucretius material.

For Tuesday, please read (1) the Hobbes excerpts that I handed out in class on Friday and (2) the passages from Books Two, Three, and Five of Lucretius's On the Nature of Things that are listed on the "Anthropology Readings" link on the "Readings for Western Political Concepts I" page on the website (where I have been listing all of the assignments since the beginning of the semester). Please read the introductory paragraphs on the "Anthropology Readings" page as well as the material on the Epicureans at #1 on the page.

For the Week of October 14th:

No class on Tuesday (Regularly scheduled Monday classes meet on Tuesday). Handout of excerpts from St' Augustine's works is the reading assignment for Friday. The second one-page paper is also due. The topic for the next one-page paper is "Compare and contrast St. Augustine's epistemology—that is, the theory of what we can know and how we can know it—with the epistemology of either the Classical philosophers (Plato or Aristotle), OR the Epicurean philosophers (Lucretius or Hobbes)." I will hold one more writing workshop at 2:00pm on Wednesday. Meet at our classroom; if we need another room, I will leave a note on the door.

As you read the material from St. Augustine, ask what St. Augustine adds to the theories of knowledge that the Epicureans and the Classical philosophers maintain. What specifically does St. Augustine say that we can know that the other philosophers say we cannot know?

Rules/Guidelines for One-Page Papers.

YOU MUST FOLLOW THE RULES IN ORDER TO GET A PASSING GRADE.

Question/Topic: Compare and contrast St. Augustine's epistemology—that is, the theory of what we can know and how we can know it—with the epistemology of either the Classical philosophers (Plato or Aristotle), OR the Epicurean philosophers (Lucretius or Hobbes). In short, compare St. Augustine's epistemology with the epistemology of one other writer/tradition that we have studied in the last two weeks.

Rules/Guidelines for One-Page Papers.

  1. The paper must, of course, be typed and submitted as a hard copy. Nothing handwritten or emailed will be accepted.
  2. The only sources to be used are the assigned readings—no other primary or secondary materials—written or oral, internet, paper, or personal—may be used or consulted. This is essentially a closed-book exam.
  3. The absolute limit is one page—about 250 words. I will not read anything that is not on that one page. Use an eleven or twelve point font, preferably Times New Roman, Univers, Garamond, Calibri, or CG Times, black ink, double-spaced, and the default page margins: typically one inch all around.
  4. The entire paper must fit on one sheet of paper, like this one, which I handed out in class: title page on one side of the sheet of paper, your text and footnotes on the other. Use only your Marymount Student I.D. number—NOT YOUR NAME. YOUR NAME SHOULD NOT APPEAR ANYWHERE ON THE TITLE PAGE OR ANYPLACE ELSE ON THE PAPER. I WANT COMPLETE ANONYMITY. If you violate this anonymity rule, I will not accept the paper and you will receive a zero.
  5. Use the footnote format that I explain below and in class. You need at least four—and no more than six— for this paper!
  6. Do not begin the paper with a restatement of the topic. You do not have enough space for wasted words, so get right into a thesis statement and your supporting statements.
  7. The deadline is the beginning of class on Friday, October 18th. This means you must come to class: do not put it in the rack on my office door. Do not try to give it to me after class. You must come to class and stay until class is over to avoid an unexcused absence. If you cannot make it to class for one reason or another, email the final draft to me by 11:00am and give me a hard copy at the next class.
  8. I will ratchet up the grading of the papers: (1) the grade on the first paper/writing sample was based upon (a) following these directions, (b) making a good faith effort, and (c) reflecting the readings in your argument; (2) the grade on this second paper will count the writing & content equally so a paper with lousy writng but good content (or vice-versa) may or may not pass, and (3) the writing and content counted together on the third paper so a paper with more than three errors will fail regardless of content. PROOFREAD! PROOFREAD! PROOFREAD!

The purpose of the references is to enable me or any reader 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 Eliade and the Frankforts are cited by page number. (3) Passages from Aristotle, Cicero, and St. Augustine are usually to book and part/chapter/section number. (4) Passages from Hobbes's Leviathan are to chapters of teh book. Book numbers in Roman numerals; chapter numbers in Arabic numerals in all these cases, just like in the linked text.

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 the Frankforts, Eliade, Lucretius, Cicero, Epictetus, and St. Augustine, though you will only need to cite Lucretius and Cicero in this paper. Always end your footnote with a period. Here are some samples:

1St. Augustine, On Free Choice of the Will, I.2.12.

2St. Augustine, City of God, XIX.13.

3Lucretius, On the Nature of Things, I.350.

4Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, ch. 6.

5Ibid. (A reference to the exact same source—author, title, the location in the text—in the very next footnote. "Ibid." refers back to the source in the previous footnote.)

6Lucretius, III.135. (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.)

7St. Augustine, Confessions, V.3.1-3. (new source by St. Augustine)

8Plato, Republic, 507(a) (new source Use the Stephanus numbers in the text—506(b), 507(a), and so on—to mark the pages)

9Ibid., 508(a). (same source but a different page in that source)

The other punctuation to be mastered is the introduction of quotes. If you introduce them using the word "that" (what Turabian calls run-in quotes), 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 societies is the history of class struggles." Here, a comma follows the verb "said," and the first word of the sentence is capitalized. The content of the quotes must be absolutely perfect; proofread the quotes several times to make sure.

One further note: do not use the noun "human" as a synonym for "man" unless you are specifically distinguishing between a human trait (note the adjective here) and a divine or animal trait. The noun "human" implies this distinction. In this discipline, the noun "man" or "human being" is the standard reference in works of political theory and philosophy. Also, use the word "divine" as an adjective only: it is not a synonym for "God or "a god."

For the week of October 7th:

For Friday, please read the excerpt from Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, Book VI, chapters 2 to 8, his description of the "intellectual virtues" (as opposed to the moral virtues). The reading is available on the "Epistemology Readings" link on the "Readings for Western Political Concepts I" page directly below this assignment page on my website. There are study questions to help you through the reading. Be sure to bring your Hobbes excerpt with you to class to compare and contrast with the Classical thinkers on epistemology.

For Tuesday, please read the excerpt from Plato's Republic that I handed out in class. Use the study questions and other materials relating to Classical epistemology that are on the "Epistemology Readings" link of the "Readings for Western Political Concepts I" page directly below this page on my website. Bring the assigned Lucretius and Hobbes readings with you, too.

Writing Rules

For the week of September 30th:

There is a yellow sign-up sheet for ten-minute-appointments this week and next on my office door. Pick a time. I will also take appointments next week. Be sure to bring your paper with you. The meeting is worth 2% of your final grade for the semester. Two days of appointments have passed and no one has signed up yet. Don't wait too long.

For Friday, please read (1) Lucretius, On the Nature of Things, II.788-1040, and (2) Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, chapters 1-5, in the excerpt that I handed out on Tuesday. Extra copies are available in the rack on the wall outside my office door. Use the study questions for both readings.

We turn next to epistemology or the study of how we know things and what we can and cannot know. For Tuesday, (1) review and bring to class the excerpts that we read earlier in the semester by Mircea Eliade and Henri and H.A. Frankfort and (2) read Lucretius, On the Nature of Things, IV.26-614 and 722-908. There are study questions for both. On the "Readings for Western Political concepts I" link directly below the link for this page, click on "Epistemology Readings" and read the introductory paragraph and the comments under ##1 and 2.

For the Week of September 23d:

For Tuesday, please read the excerpt from the Gnostic Apocryphon of John. Use the study questions and the background material provided on the "Ontology-Cosmology Readings" link, as usual.

Mid-Term on Friday As I explained in class, the mid-term will consist of two essay questions. to be answered in the blue book. One of the essay questions will be introduced with three quoted passages from the assigned readings, which you will be asked to identify by author, title, and tradition right on the exam sheet. The questions will be comparison-contrast questions: compare one tradition's view of an aspect of ontology or cosmology to other traditions' views of the same aspect. A good essay answer is one that directly addresses all parts of the question with accurate information from the assigned readings, not the lectures. The lectures and class discussions are aimed at helping you understand the readings.

A few other points:

  1. Bring two black (or blue) ink pens to the exam. Do not bring or use pencil to write your blue book answers. I will bring extra pens in case yours runs out of ink.
  2. Bring your student ID number with you. Like the short papers, I want you to identify yourself solely by student ID number.
  3. Some of the different aspects of ontology-cosmology that we studied are
  4. There will be no bathroom breaks, so use the restroom before you come to class.

I'll see you tomorrow!

For the Week of September 16th:

For Friday, please read the material that I handed out by St. Augustine and St. Thomas on cosmology-ontology. There are study questions on the Ontology-Cosmology Readings link, as well as links to these very readings. The class discussion will follow the questions, so be prepared!

For Tuesday, please read the handout material from Aristotle and Emperor Marcus Aurelius. Study questions for these readings and the readings from Cicero are on the Ontology-Cosmology Readings link on the "Readings for Western Political Concepts I" page just below this page/link.

For the Week of September 9th:

On Friday, we will turn to the classical tradition. Please (1) read the material from Cicero's two works on the handout that I gave you in class and (2) write a one page paper comparing what Cicero and Lucretius say about cosmology in the readings that were assigned this week. Please read the rules and guidelines below carefully. To pass the paper and receive full credit, you must follow these directions, which I also went over in class.

For the specific lines of the poem that are assigned, follow these same directions from last week:

First, on my website,

For the Week of September 2d:

For Friday, complete the chapter "Myth and Reality" by the Frankforts and the Introduction by Mircea Eliade. Also remember the short one-hour writing workshop that I will conduct on Wednesday at 2:00pm in our regular classroom. It will be very basic. If you are concerned about your writing—punctuation, grammar, sentence and paragraph structure—please come. If you are not, no need to come.

This week we will study the ancient or "mythopoeic" thinking described in the essay "Myth and Reality" by Henri and Harriet Frankfort, and the ancient origins of religious thought in the Introduction to Mircea Eliade's book The Sacred and the Profane. I handed the material out in class. Extra copies are in the rack on the wall outside my office door, Rowley G1021. Tuesday's assignment is from the Frankforts' article on "Myth and Reality."

Please do the following:

First, on my website,

Let's increase the amount of class partipation and reduce the need for quizzes. Class was entirely too quiet on Friday.

See you next week. Have a good Labor Day!

The paper must follow the following rules-in-red.

.

Rules for One-Page Papers

The question to be addressed in the paper is "How does the Classical Christian anthropology, either philosophical or empirical, of Saint Augustine differ significantly from the philosophical or empirical anthropology of either Aristotle or the Epicureans, Lucretius and Hobbes?"

Rules/Guidelines for One-Page Papers.

  1. The paper must, of course, be typed and submitted as a hard copy. Nothing handwritten or emailed (see below) will be accepted.
  2. The only sources to be used are the assigned readings?no other primary or secondary materials.
  3. The absolute limit is one page. I will not read anything that is not on that one page. Use an eleven or twelve point font, preferably Times New Roman, Univers, Garamond, or CG Times, black ink, double-spaced, and the default page margins: typically one inch all around.
  4. NO title page. Type your Marymount Student I.D. number on the top of the page or write it on the back?NOT YOUR NAME. YOUR NAME SHOULD NOT APPEAR ?ANYPLACE ON THE PAPER. I WANT COMPLETE ANONYMITY. If you violate this anonymity rule, I will not accept the paper and you will receive a zero.
  5. Use the footnote formats that I explain below and in class.[1] The paper should have at least four footnotes.
  6. Do not begin the paper with a restatement of the topic. You do not have enough space for wasted words, so get right into a thesis statement and your supporting statements.
  7. The deadline is the beginning of class on Tuesday, October 25th. This means you must come to class. Do not try to give it to me after class. If you are going to be late to class or if you must miss class, email me the paper by 2:00pm on Tuesday, then give me a hard copy when you get to class on Thursday.
  8. I will ratchet up the grading of the papers: (1) the grade on the first paper/writing sample is based upon (a) following the directions, (b) making a good faith effort, and (c) reflecting the readings in your argument; (2) the grade on this second paper will count the writing & content equally so a paper with lousy writing but good content (or vice-versa) will pass, and (3) the writing and content counted together on the third paper so a paper with more than three writing errors will fail regardless of content.

Footnotes

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: passages from Lucretius, Hobbes, Aristotle, and St. Augustine. There is work by Lucretius, one by Aristotle, one by Hobbes, and one by St. Augustine. See below for sample footnotes. Book numbers are in Roman numerals; chapter/section numbers are in Arabic numerals for all these works, just like in the texts I handed out. References to St. Thomas?s Summa are to Question 91. See below.

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: Aristotle said, " All causes, both proper and incidental, may be spoken of either as potential or as actual."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 the works by Aristotle, Cicero, Saint Augustine, and Saint Thomas, just in case you need models. You must have at least four footnotes for this paper.

1Aristotle, Nic. Eth., II.8. (End all footnotes with a period. (This is the book and section/chapter number: Roman numeral, period, section number.)

2Lucretius, On the Nature of Things, II.785-788 (References to Lucretius's poem are to book and line numbers: roman numbers., period, line numbers.)

3Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, ch. 5.

6Saint Augustine, City of God, VII.7. (new source, but same format as above)


[1] Footnotes like this. No interlinear or parenthetical references in the text.

For the Class of Friday, August 30th:

Please read the "Introduction to Political Theory" that I handed out on Tuesday. Extra copies are available in the rack on the wall outside my office door, Rowley G1021. There will be a short quiz on the reading at the beginning of class. Come to class prepared to ask and to answer questions about the material.

The material below is from past semesters of POL 210 and POL 211. It is of limited usefulness this semester, but go exploring if you wish.

Roberto Calasso

Phrenology

A "People"

A Final Note:

Your final exams were pretty good; a step up from the second mid-term.

I apologize for not handing back your final papers when you took the final exam. I brought the papers with me and promptly forgot them once the final started.

In the past, I would put those papers (and a few of the second papers that students did not pick up because of absences) in the rack on the wall outside my office door, but the new confidentiality rules prohibit faculty from putting graded work out where other students can see it. I have all of these papers. If you can catch me in this week, I'll be glad to give yours back. If not, I'll be glad to give them back in January,

Have a Great Break!

The final exam will be held at noon on Monday, December 10th IN ROWLEY ROOM G221, the COMPUTER ROOM. Anyone who wishes to type the exam may do so; I hope a few of you do.

The 90-minute exam will consist of three essay questions. One question, perhaps with quotes to identify, will focus on the ethics and politics readings assigned since the last mid-term exam. It will be a typical comparison-contrast question on that material. The remaining two questions will ask you to integrate the five fundamental conceptions that we have been studying all semester for two of the traditions. You should be prepared to do so for all four traditions; this is what the course has aimed at all semester.

One way of preparing for the exam is to begin with the most recent material—the political concepts or theories that we have just studied—and work back through the ethics, anthropology, and epistemology to the cosmology/contology of each tradition, examining how each conception connects to the preceding conception in that chain and seeing how one conception builds upon another. Some of you did that in the papers you just handed in (which were pretty good, by the way: lowest grade was a C-).

But whatever you do, don't forget the room change: Rowley G221, at 12:00pm! G221 is on the lowest floor of Rowley. I'll be standing in the hall looking for you. See you then.

For the Week of December 3d:

The assigned reading for Thursday is the handout on Hobbes's social contract. Extra copies are available in the rack on the wall outside my office door.

The final one-page paper is also due on Thursday. In this paper, I want you to explain which of the four traditions you most strongly agree with and why you agree. In particular, as I mentioned in class, I would like you to think over all of the material we have covered this semester and single out the fundamental conception(s)—cosmological, epistemological, anthropological, ethical or political; Epicurean, Classical, Classical christian/theological, or Esoteric—that strikes you as the truest idea that you have come across this semester. Namely:

Note Well: I have never assigned this particular paper topic before in this course: never! It is different from the final paper topic that I have assigned in the past, so do not model your paper on what you might have heard about or read from past semesters. I will grade this paper (1) on how persuasive—how plausible and cogent—your reasoning is and (2) on how well your paper is written. The rules below still apply. You should use a few footnotes, and Ibid.s, to bolster your argument and assertions.

Rules/Guidelines for One-Page Papers.

YOU MUST FOLLOW THE RULES IN ORDER TO GET A PASSING GRADE.

  1. The paper must, of course, be typed and submitted as a hard copy ON ONE PIECE OF PAPER, no more. Nothing handwritten or emailed will be graded.
  2. The only sources to be used are the assigned readings—no other primary or secondary materials from any source—written or oral, internet, paper, or personal—may be used or consulted. This is essentially a closed-book exam except for the assigned readings from the course.
  3. The absolute limit is one page—about 250 words. I will not read anything that is not on that one page. Use an eleven or twelve point font, preferably Times New Roman, Univers, Garamond, Calibri, or CG Times, black ink, double-spaced, and the default page margins: typically one inch all around.
  4. The entire paper must fit ON ONE SHEET OF PAPER, LIKE THE ONE I HANDED OUT EARLIER IN THE COURSE: TITLE PAGE ON ONE SIDE, YOUR TEXT AND FOOTNOTES ON THE OTHER. Use only your Marymount Student I.D. number—NOT YOUR NAME. YOUR NAME SHOULD NOT APPEAR ANYWHERE ON THE TITLE PAGE OR ANYPLACE ELSE ON THE PAPER. I WANT COMPLETE ANONYMITY. If you violate this anonymity rule, I will not accept the paper and you will receive a zero.
  5. Use the footnote format that I explain below and in class. You need at least two or three footnotes for this paper!
  6. Do not begin the paper with a restatement of the topic. You do not have enough space for wasted words, so get right into a thesis statement and your supporting statements.
  7. The deadline is the beginning of class on Thursday, December 6th. This means you must come to class: do not put it in the rack outside my office door. Do not try to give it to me after class. You must come to class and stay until class is over to get any credit for the paper.
  8. The one exception to the foregoing rule is that you may email the paper to me before11:00am on Monday if you cannot make it to class because of a documented, excused absence. You must then give me an identical hard copy and the medical, employment, legal documentation as soon as you are able to.
  9. I will ratchet up the grading of the papers: (1) the grade on the first paper/outline was based upon (a) following these directions, (b) making a good faith effort, and (c) reflecting the readings in your outline; (2) the grade on the second paper counted the writing & content equally, so a paper with lousy writing but good content (or vice-versa) passed, and (3) the writing and content will count together on the third paper so a paper with more than three significant, proof-readable errors will fail regardless of content. PROOFREAD!!!

The purpose of the footnote references is to enable me or any reader to find the exact passage you are quoting or paraphrasing or otherwise referring to. For this paper there are two possible sources for you to cite: (1) The passages from Plato's Republic are to be cited by the Stephanus numbers in the text, and (2) the passages in Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics are to be cited by book number (Roman numeral) and chapter/part/section numbers (Arabic numerals) as illustrated below. You should know this by now.

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. You may also use the model footnotes on the handout that I gave you in class.

1Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, II.6.

2Plato, Republic, 506a.

3Ibid. (A reference to the exact same source—author, title, the location in the text—in the very next footnote. "Ibid." refers back to the source in the previous footnote.)

4Ibid., 509a. (A reference to the exact same last-stated source—author and title—but to a different location in the text. "Ibid." refers back to the source in the previous footnote.)

5Aristotle, III.5. (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.)

Though I have provided all of the relevant information for this paper in the material above, Models for all Chicago Style references can be found here.

An explanations of Stephanus Numbers (Plato) can be found here.

The other punctuation to be mastered is the introduction of quotes. If you introduce them using the word "that" (what Turabian calls run-in quotes), 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 societies is the history of class struggles." Here, a comma follows the verb "said," and the first word of the sentence is capitalized. The content of the quotes must be absolutely perfect; proofread the quotes several times to make sure.

One further note: do not use the noun "human" as a synonym for "man" unless you are specifically distinguishing between a human trait (note the adjective here) and a divine or animal trait. The noun "human" implies this distinction. In this discipline, the noun "man" is the standard reference in works of political theory and philosophy. Also, use the word "divine" as an adjective only: it is not a synonym for "God or "a god."

For Monday, please read the following: St. Augustine, On Free Choice of the Will, pages 41-47 (starting at marginal note 4.9 and ending at marginal note 6.14) and St. Thomas's Summa Theologica, "Treatise on Law": Question 91 (Of the Various Kinds of Law). (The St. Augustine website that is linked here has this neato little gizmo that changes the page of the facsimile book when you click on the right-hand page. Makes you want to read, and read, and read.)

For the Week of November 26th:

For Thursday, bring your exams and we will go over them first thing. Please read these excerpts from Aristotle on politics and the introductory paragraphs on the "Politics Readings" link.

Please read the handout with excerpts from Epictetus's Enchiridion. Compare it to the excerpts from Epicurus that we read last week. We will begin the class with Hobbes's discussion of contracts, covenants, and promises in chapter 14 of Leviathan.

For the Class of Monday, November 19th:

Please read the handout that includes excerpts from chapter 14 and 15 of Hobbes's Leviathan. Extra copies are in the rack on my office door. Study questions are available on the "Ethics Readings" page. I will hand back the exams on Monday, November 26th.

The final one-page paper will be due on the last day of class, Thursday, December 6th.

For the Week of November 12th:

For Thursday, please read the handout I gave you on Epicurus's so-called "Primciple Doctrines." Again, consult the "Ethics Readings" page for background and study questions.

Please bring the Plato and Aristotle excerpts that you used for your one-page papers that I just returned to you. We will go over those readings and also the excerpt from Mahé that was included in the packet of excerpts that was assigned for Monday the 12th.

We begin the final portion of the course where we try to bring everything that we have studied thus far into coherent understandings of Epicurean, Classical, Classical Christian, and Esoteric political theory. For Monday, please read the handout I gave you on Gnostic morality and my introductory paragraphs on the "Ethics Readings" page on the "Readings for Western Political Concepts I" link. There are excerpts in the handout by four authors. Note at least one distinct point made by each author.

I will also hand back the papers. Most of you need to work extra hard on your writing. 'Nuff said.

For the Week of November 5th:

For Monday, please read the handouts that I gave you: "In Quest of the Great Pearl" and "Poemandres, the Shepherd of Men" (from the Corpus Hermeticum). Extra copies are in the wall rack outside my office door. Please read the introductory remarks for both of these excerpts on the "Anthropology Readings" page. Study questions are also on the "Anthropology Readings" page.

Mid-term on Thursday. Again, an essay exam with all new questions and identifications. Questions on Epistemology, empirical and philosophical anthropology, and the relations between and among these subjects. Start catching up on your reading now.

For the Week of October 29th:

For Thursday, please read the handout that I gave you with the excerpts from St. Augustine on Christian anthropology. We will use the study questions listed on the "anthropology Readings" page to work through the readings in class.

As I indicated, the next one-page paper will be due on Monday, October 29th, and will be based upon the excerpts from Plato and Aristotle that I handed out on Thursday. I went go over the directions for the paper in class; below is the set of rules for these papers that I will apply to them. YOU MUST FOLLOW THE RULES IN ORDER TO GET A PASSING GRADE.

The excerpts from Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics contain his well-known discussion of Happiness (Greek, eudaimonia). In these excerpts he makes comments directly related to both empirical and philosophic anthropology.

The excerpts from Plato's Republic contain his famous myth, "The Ring of Gyges," and his later discussion of the fate of a philosopher in the real world. (Note: For copying purposes, the excerpts from Book Six of the Republic are on the first few pages of the copy; the excerpt from Book Two is on the last couple of pages. The Stephanus numbers for both are clearly marked in the margins.) In these excerpts, Plato, too, indicates his views on empirical and philosophical anthropology, but not as directly or explicitly as Aristotle does.

As I suggested in class, you should organize your paper into two paragraphs—one centered on Aristotle and one on Plato—and in those paragraphs support your comments with references (short quotes and paraphrases) to the texts. Remember, even paraphrases must be footnoted.

TOPIC/QUESTION: Choosing either empirical anthropology or philosophical anthropology as your focus, what is the view of Aristotle and Plato on that concept in these excerpts?

For the Week of October 22d:

For Monday, please read the passages from Lucretius, On the Nature of the Universe that are listed under #1 on the "Anthropology Readings" link that we always use for this course. Hobbes and Rousseau handout for Thursday. The Hobbes excerpts include one of the most famous writings in the history of Western culture—chapter 13 of Leviathan—and the equally famous reply of Rousseau. There are a few study questions on the "Anthropology Readings" page that I adapted from the longer lists of study questions on the main webpage.

A note on the mid-term grades. The mid-term grades that I posted are a rough approximation of your present grade in the class based on the mid-term exam grade and the grade on the first paper/outline that you handed in last month. Everyone who handed in an outline got an "A" or a "B" for that assignment. Accordingly, I took your mid-term exam grade and raised it a half grade or so if you handed in the outline, and lowered it a half grade or so if you did not hand in the outline. Since the grades in the course are weighted, it is possible for almost everyone in the course to get a significantly higher final grade than your present mid-term grade.

For the Week of October 15th:

For Thursday, please read the excerpts from Hans Jonas's Gnostic Religion that I handed out. Extra copies are in the wall rack outside my office. This is a short assignment. Take the occasion to review the material from St. Augustine; compare Augustine's remarks on how we know things and what we can "know" with Plato's divided line schema and Aristotle's intellectual virtues. Quizzes are always possible.

For Monday, please read these excerpts from St. Augustine's early dialogue On Free Choice of the Will, from the City of God, and from his Confessions. Study questions for these excerpts and for Thursday's reading from Hans Jonas, which I will hand out in class, are on the "Epistemology Readings" page. You should really focus on the study questions for these, and for all, assigned readings.

I will hold another writing workshop session in the conference room on the lower floor of Ireton on Wednesday, October 17th.

For the Week of October 8th:

Tomorrow (Wednesday, October 10th), I will hold a one-hour writing workshop in the conference room on the ground floor (lower floor) of Ireton Hall at 1:00pm.

For Thursday, please read the excerpt from Book Six of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics on the intellectual virtues (or on excellent ways of thinking). Use the study questions on the "Epistemology Readings" page. We will conclude the discussion of Plato's divided line and Myth of the Cave. In short, we will devote the week to Classical epistemology. Quizzes are possible. I have a few more comments on the mid-terms, too.

We will be discussing Classical epistemology this week. For TUESDAY (our Monday class will meet Tuesday because of the Columbus Day holiday), please read the excerpts from Plato's Republic that I handed out in class. (Extra copies are in the rack on the wall outside my office door.) The excerpt includes the parts of the Republic that discuss the "divided line" and the "Myth (or Parable or Allegory) of the Cave." We will begin class with any remaining questions you might have about Epicurean epistemology (Lucretius and Hobbes), which we discussed this week.

On the "Epistemology Readings" link of the "Readings for Western Political Concepts I" page are links to study questions for both readings and a useful graphic on the divided line argument that we will be discussing Tuesday. On that graphic, the translation that appears in the handout is the Jowett translation.

I will also return and discuss the exams, probably Tuesday.

For the Week of October 1st:

For Thursday, please read chapters 1 to 6 of Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan, available with study questions on the "Epistemology Readings" page right below the paragraph on Lucretius. There will be a quiz at the beginning of class on the assigned Lucretius and Hobbes readings. And keep in mind the message above:

Come to class prepared to discuss the assigned readings!

We begin the section on how we know things, what we can know, and what knowledge is: epistemology. We will begin again with Lucretius and the Epicurean view, but I would also ask that you review the excerpts from the Frankforts and Eliade, who first introduced the subject of how ancient man "knew" about the world in which he lived.

As we have been doing for the past month, please go to the "Epistemology Readings" link on the "Readings for Western Political Concepts I" page directly below this one and read (1) the introductory paragraphs, (2) the review questions about the Frankforts' and Eliade excerpts, and (3) the passages from Lucretius's poem that are indicated there under #2 (there is less to read than last time!).

I will have your outlines corrected and returned next week, and your exams corrected and returned by October 9th.

For the Week of September 24th:

Good discussion of Jonas's article on Monday! Your answers to my questions indicated that many of you studied this difficult material and made a serious effort to understand Jonas's argument. Good for you! Keep it up. (And don't forget to look up vocabulary that you are not familiar with.)

For Thursday's mid-term exam:

Remember, a good essay directly responds to the specific question with accurate information taken from the readings. No long, rambling answers. Do not regurgitate the lecture discussions in your essays: you must demonstrate to me that you read the assigned material and only the assigned material—use nothing from other sources (or Wikipedia) on the exam.

For a quick review of the traditions, review the "Introduction to Political Theory" that we discussed during the first week of class.

For Monday, please read and outline the excerpt from Hans Jonas's The Gnostic Religion that I handed out on Thursday. Extra copies are available in the box outside my office door. This is a writing assignment; you must hand in the outline on Monday to receive credit. This is a pretty substantial assignment: don't put it off until Sunday night!

The excerpt that I gave you contains Jonas's argument describing the effect on classical culture of Gnosticism's cosmology, why that cosmology attracted followers, and how classical culture responded. As I mentioned in class, the italicized sections of Jonas's chapter generally mark the main sections of the argument.

Instructions for the Outline

    On one piece of paper:
  1. The outline must be type-written (11 or 12 point type, standard typeface like Times New Roman) and must be no longer than one page.
  2. You may type or write your name on the back of the page.
  3. Though no particular outline form is required, I suggest the common practice of identifying the major sections of the readings by Roman numerals, and the subdivisions within the sections by Arabic numerals and/or letters.
  4. For each of the major divisions, indicate the general content that Jonas discusses and the principal point(s) that Jonas makes.
  5. The outline should reflect your reading of the entire handout.
  6. The outline should not be crammed full of details that cover the entire page: outlines are tools for you to record the most important points of the reading in order to jog your memory about further details of the reading.

The grade will be based on (1) following these directions, (2) giving me evidence that you read the whole excerpt, and (3) handing the paper in on time.

The mid-term exam is on Thursday, September 27th.

Given the uncertainty of the weather, with cancellations possible, I want to set out for you the schedule plan for the next few classes until the mid-term. Behind each planned assignment, I will put the date of the class assuming that there are no weather or other cancellations:

For the Week of September 17th:

The assignment for Thursday is the handout containing the Apocryphon of John. Please read the introduction to the Apocryphon on the Ontology-Cosmology page: #5. "Esoteric Cosmology and Cosmogony." These few short paragraphs also contain the study/discussion questions that will guide the class on Thursday.

Following the scheduled outline above, the assignment for Monday the 17th is the handout of excerpts from St. Augustine's City of God and St. Thomas's Summa Theologica. Study questions are linked on the Ontology-Cosmology Readings page. As always, extra copies of the handout are available in the box outside my office door.

For the Week of September 10th:

The handout with excerpts from Aristotle and Cicero is for Thursday. Use the study questions for the excerpts that are linked on the Ontology-Cosmology Readings page.

For Monday, please read the passages from Lucretius's On the Nature of the Universe that are listed under #2 on the "Ontology-Cosmology Readings" page. Work your way through the study questions linked on that page. There will be a quiz so do not be late for class.

For the Class of Thursday, September 6th:

Please read the excerpts from Mircea Eliade's Sacred and the Profane and the Frankforts' essay "Myth and Reality" that I handed out in class. Extra copies are available in the box next to my office door. Use these brief introductions to ontology and cosmology and to the pre-philosophic mythopoeic understanding of the cosmos and the study questions for the readings, as I explained in class. This site is also available on my main webpage under "Readings for Western Political Concepts, as I showed you in class. (You need not read the introductions to the other traditions that appear on the ontology-cosmology page. We will use those in the next few classes.)

In sum, read and study (1) the handout I gave you, (2) the two brief introductions, and (3) the applicable study questions for next class.

For the Class of August 30th:

The assignment for Thursday's class (August 30th) is the essay entitled "Introduction to Political Theory" that was handed out in class. Extra copies of the handout, as well as extra copies of the syllabus, are available in the box on the chair next to my office door: Rowley 1018. You should come to class with an idea of the five fundamental conceptions of political philosophy and the four philosophical traditions that we will be studying. Look up the meanings of any words that you are unfamiliar with. Quizzes this semester will cover definitions of words in the assigned readings that are common English words as well as the terms that are technical terms and concepts of philosophical significance. I will be asking you a lot of questions.

The material below is from past semesters. You may scroll through it if you wish to see typical assignments and issues that come up in both POL 210 and POL 211.

POL 211 always addresses the question of authority, or "What gives you the right to tell me what to do?" Though this question is inherent in the very concept of politics, it has been particulary troublesome in the modern era—the period of Western history beginning in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. This period of history saw the Epicurean tradition become the dominant tradition in Western political thought, but as with any historical period, modernity is also heir to what has gone before. Thus, the Classical, Classical-Christian, and especially the Esoteric responses to the question of authority are still part of the discussion.

Welcome to the course! This semester we will be focusing on three different topics: (1) the development of political liberalism, with particular emphasis on John Stuart Mill's On Liberty; (2) the nature of political ideology; and (3) Walter Lippmann's classic critique of the health of Western liberal democracies.

Come to class prepared to discuss the assigned readings!

For the FINAL Exam:

The final exam will be held on Tuesday at 3:00pm. I am trying to secure Rowley G221, the computer lab where we had the last mid-term. The final will not be cumulative, but it will cover all of the readings assigned since the last exam and also some material from Lippmann's Public Philosophy that deals with political ideologies:

The exam wiil consist of two essay questions. I will include a bit more information here on Sunday and Monday.

The material of the past few weeks on political ideologies has focused on two kinds or manifestations of ideological thought: (1) "theories" or visions, like Marx's and some of the radical environmentalists', that predict the future of the human world, a "cosmic scenario," as it were, and (2) ideologies like those described in Minogue's "Introduction" and represented in some of the feminist theories that do not make bold, cosmic predictions but propose a radical change and replacement of existing culture with a cultural model based on a different ethical standard, not necessarily through violent revolution but by a continuous criticism within our culture.

We have focused mostly on the former kind—the "cosmic scenario" type—the ancient phantasies or myths described by Norman Cohn in the Pursuit of the Millennium handout, the theory of world history in Marx's Communist Manifesto, and in some of the apocalyptic visions of radical environmentalists described by Ellis. The critical approaches of Watkins, Cohn, and Lippmann are particularly applicable to these theories. You have already written two short papers or analyses of such ideologies. One of the questions on the final exam will again focus on this kind of ideology, perhaps asking you to compare and contrast the approaches or asking you to analyze a new, short theory that is arguably ideological. You should know the main points of Watkins's, Cohn's, and Lippmann's approaches to or concepts of political ideology as well as the examples of Marx and the radical environmentalists described by Ellis for this question. (Be sure to look up "apocalyptic" and know what it means and what it does not mean!)

The second question will focus on the second kind of ideology, that described in Minogue's "Introduction" and represented in some theories of feminism and in contemporary movements such as "political correctness" and Western Marxism, as I discussed in class. The focus here will be on Minogue's chapter—not on the brief summary of his approach on the "Approaches to Political Ideologies" link. You should be thoroughly familiar with the material on the Minogue handout.

For the Last week of Class:

For Friday: Writing Assignment Due! As described in class, write a one-page paper applying one of the approaches to political ideologies—Watkins's, Cohn's, or Minogue's— to the apocalyptic environmental theories that Richard Ellis describes in "Apocalypse and Authoritarianism in the Radical Environmental Movement" handout that was distributed in class on Tuesday.. Put/write your ID number on the backside of the page—no names!—and hand it in at class time.

To get a passing grade on the paper, you must adhere to the following directions. Or, to state it another way, if you violate any of the following rules, or if the writing is very poor, the paper will fail.

You do not have the space for an introductory or a conclusory paragraph, so don't include either one of them. Get right to your statement of the first element and your application of it to the Ellis txt.

On one page, you can easily write a 350-word paper using a twelve point font; 400 words using an eleven point font. Break up your text into two or three paragraphs.

I will take off points for spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors, so proofread and write carefully but concisely. This is more of a brief memo than a college "paper," but good writing is always important.

Please read the handout by Kenneth Minogue (extra copies are in the wall rack outside my office) for Tuesday. We will also complete the discussion of Jaggar's article on women's liberation. Minogue's article will offer a different conception of political ideologies and also will demonstrate a change in the ideologies from the "cosmic scenario" or "screenplay" myths associated with ideologies such as the Marxist and Nazi ideologies to the more subtle social movement influence of contemporary ideologies.

I will hand out a chapter by Richard Ellis on several "apocalytic" environmental movements for Friday's class. I will ask you to apply either Watkins's or Minogue's approach to one of the theories in the handout for your last paper, due Friday.

For the Class of April 26th:

Please (1) read the essay by Alison Jaggar on "Political Philosophies of Women's Liberation" that I handed out to you and (2) review the approach to ideology by Kenneth Minogue, the fifth approach listed on the "Approaches to Political Ideologies" link just below this assignment link.

Jaggar's essay presents a variety of positions one can take on women's rights—from non-ideological to "ideological," as we have used that term; from attitudes of basic fairness and practical reform to rigidly ideological attitudes. As you read Jaggar's survey of different philosophies, determine which are "ideological" and which are not according to Watkins, Lippmann, or Minogue. We will continue to discuss Marx's continuing influence on social thought and particularly on so-called "political correctness" and "cultural Marxism." A useful source (I will be referring to it) is Roger Gottlieb's "Introduction" to his Anthology of Western Marxism: From Lukacs and Gramsci to Socialist-Feminism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989), copies of which are in the rack on the wall outside my office door.

Some additional surveys of feminist thought:

  1. Alison Jaggar, "Political Philosophies of Women's Liberation"
  2. Rosemarie Tong, Feminist Thought
  3. John Charvet, Feminism

Exam Essays

For the Class of April 16th:

For the Week of April 8th:

WORKING STUDENTS OF POL 211, UNITE!

and read the Communist Manifesto for Friday. Be prepared for a quiz on the contents. There will be a short writing assignment for next Tuesday, April 16th.

I just received confirmation that the mid-term exam will be held in room G221 of Rowley, the computer lab across from the elevators on the floor of our regular classroom. G221 is about 25' from our regular classroom.

As I explained before, the mid-term will consist of three essay questions: one on Lippmann's diagnosis presented primarily in chapters 1 to 5; one on the challenges to liberal democracy that Lippmann outlines in chapters 6 & 7 and that he refers to again in chapter 10; and one on his public philosophy prescription, given primarily in chapters 8 to 10, with additional observations in chapter 11. The online articles and essays that I have posted over the past few weeks and Federalist 51 may also find their way into my questions: be familiar with them. There will be no identification-type questions, just the three essays. All three of the subjects that you will be tested on—the diagnosis, the challenges, and the prescription—are compound issues in that Lippmann's arguments have multiple parts. You should know them well—both their main principles and assertions and the details that Lippmann uses to support his main points.

To pass the test, you must clearly demonstrate that you are familiar with Lippmann's arguments, that you have read the book and not just listened to my comments during class. To get a good grade, you must demonstrate a good understanding of Lippmann's arguments. Your very limited and hesitant responses in class have indicated that you have work to do.

The Public Philosophy was a New York Times best-seller and has gone through multiple printings. It is still in print. It is not a book written for a highly educated, academic audience: best sellers never are. It was written for, and bought by, the general public—people with and without college degrees. In short, it was written for people like you; not for advanced grad students. In the several times that I have taught the book, more students have later told me that it was their favorite book than any other.

It is a short book: big print, less than 200 pages. You have, and have had, ample time to read it, to ponder over the arguments that the most famous American journalist of the twentieth century tried to make as clear as possible. Read it, study it, discuss it with your classmates. There is no reason that you should not be able to understand his arguments and, thus, write good essays on the mid-term.

The assignment for Friday, April 12th is Marx's Communist Manifesto. You should have the cheap papaerback that I listed on the syllabus.

For the week of April 1st and beyond:

For Friday, please read chapter 10 of Lippmann.

Does this short article about Italian politics reflect Lippmann's diagnosis?

For Tuesday the 2d, please read chapter 9 of Public Philosophy. For Friday, please read chapter 10. Chapter 11, which is a good review of the book for studying purposes, should be read by Tuesday the 9th, the day of the mid-term.

For the Week of March 25th:

For Friday, please read chapter 8 of Lippmann. I will hand back the outlines with a model form.

For Tuesday, please read James Madison's Federalist 51, which I handed out to you in class. We will discuss it and them finish the discussion of chapter 7 of Lippmann's Public Philosophy.

We will have the mid-term on the Lippmann and related material on Tuesday, April 9th.

Here are a few study questions to lead you through Federalist 51 :

  1. What is the initial question that Madison addresses?
  2. According to Madison, why should the basic power of government be separated?
  3. Does he insist on a strict separation and independence of the fundamental powers of government?
  4. How does he answer his original question?
  5. What is Madison's view of human nature, or at least of the nature of most politicians?
  6. How does his view of the nature of politicians inform his suggested design of republican government?
  7. In the final two paragraphs of the essay, Madison provides two additional reasons that the American system prevents the concentration of political power. What is the first argument Madison makes?
  8. What is Madison's second argument? (The second argument recaps the case Madison made in Federalist #10 for an "extended" republic.)

Here are several stories about the Chinese suppression of the Uighurs (pronounced "Wee-gers") in northwestern Xinjiang region of China:

For the Week of March 18th:

For Friday, please read the following short op-ed pieces that appeared recently:

  1. Fontaine and Frederick, "The Autocrat's New Tool Kit"
  2. Gamerman, "The Dystopian Blues"
  3. Christopher DeMuth, "declarative government"
  4. David Runciman, China's Authoritarian Challenge to Democracy

The first two related directly to the summary of totalitarian regines that I discussed in class. (See Friedrich and Brzezinski's "Totalitarian Syndrome".) The latter two reflect on Lippmann's comment that the masses demand leadership in times of stress.

For Tuesday, please read chapter 7 of Lippmann's Public Philosophy, "The Adversaries of Liberal Democracy." We shall also review chapter 6, which got short shrift last week.

For the Week of March 4th:

No new reading assignment for Friday. If you are going on one of the Global Classroom trips, please email me and let me know which Global Classroom course you are in. If you are not going abroad, please take the opportunity to meet with me to go over your exam. I have office hours from 1:00 to 3:00pm.

Just chapter six and the outline of chapter five for Tuesday. Remember to focus the outline on the point or points that Lippmann wants to make in the argument of the chapter. Include all that is relevant, but only what is relevant, to that argument.

For the Week of February 25th:

You may be interested in articles by Christopher DeMuth, "declarative government", and David Runciman, China's Authoritarian Challenge to Democracy. Compare and contrast it with the following:

A light assignment for Friday: please read chapter 5 of Public Philosophy. I will also hand the mid-terms back and probably give you a short quiz on the assignments (chapters 3-5; we went over chapter 2 on Tuesday). Study Lippmann's argument and also his vocabulary (any words that you do not know: look 'em up!).

Be sure to bring a hard copy of the text with you: print it off if you use a Kindle version at home, or sit with someone who has a paper copy in class.

Please read chapters 2, 3, and 4 of Lippmann's Public Philosophy. Look up the definitions of any words that you do not know; try to see how each chapter of the book contributes to the argument that he sketches in chapter one.

Lippmann 2

Lippmann 5

Exam

For the Week of February 18th:

We will begin Lippmann's Public Philosophy on Friday. Please read chapter 1, "The Obscure Revolution," for Friday. But throw a few snowballs first. You might want to take a look at this article by David Runciman, "China�s Challenge to Democracy" or this one warning of another crisis of liberal democracy.

The Mid-Term Exam will be given on Tuesday.

We will begin Walter Lippmann's Public Philosophy on Friday.

For the Week of February 11th:

For Friday, please read the handout with different concepts of freedom from Hobbes, Locke, and Green. YOU must supply the appropriate definition of freedom from the recent assignments of John Stuart Mill's essays.

We will begin with a short quiz that focuses partly on the authors and writings that we discussed during the first two weeks of classes. We will then finish the discussion (if you participate in the discussion) regarding Mill's Utilitarianism, and then turn to the different Western Political Concepts of freedom.

For Tuesday, please (1) read this excerpt from Jeremy Bentham's Principles of Morals and Legislation AND (2) chapter 2 of Mill's Utilitarianism. Bring hard copies to class.The first four chapters of Bentham's Principles is available here, and a link to the complete work is available on the main page of my website.

For the Week of February 4th:

For Friday, chapter 3 of On Liberty, "Of Individuality."

Please read Chapter one, "Introductory," of John Stuart Mill's On Liberty. I suggest you buy a cheap copy of Mill's On Liberty and Utilitarianism, but if you use an online edition, be sure to print a hard copy to bring with you to class. You MUST have a hard copy to use in class. You may not use didgital devices in class.

For the Week of January 28th:

For Friday, please read the handout with excerpts from the writings of David Hume and Edmund Burke.

Hume on the Origin of Government

Burke on rights

For Tuesday, please read the excerpts from Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau on social contract theories that I handed out in class. An extra copy is in the wall rack outside my office, Rowley 1018. We will look at David Hume's and Edmund Burke's reaction to social contract theories on Friday.

For the Week of January 21st:

Please read the excerpts from Hobbes and Locke that I handed out on the natural condition of mankind and the true source of our morals and laws. Extra copies are in the wall rack outside my office door. Maybe a quiz.

Please (1) finish the excerpts on the Egyptians and Mesopotamians that we began to discuss on Friday and (2) read the excerpts from Aristotle and St. Thomas that I handed out in class on Friday. There are extra copies of the handouts in the rack on the wall outside my office door (Rowley 1018) and here.

We will begin class with a short quiz on these assigned readings.

The assignment for Friday is (1) the handout on the Modern Rejection of Classical Thought and (2) the excerpts from Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. Extra copies are in the rack on the wall outside my office door and here.

For the Class of Friday, January 18th:

The assignment for Friday, January 18, is the excerpts on ancient Egyptian and Mesopotamian societies that I handed out in class. Extra copies are available in the wall rack next to my office door (Rowley 1018). I want to cover the material on Egypt and the first couple of pages of material on Mesopotamia (pages 125-127). Consider the following questions as you read:

Come to class prepared to answer these questions and to engage in a class discussion.

As you read the next part on Mesopotamia for Tuesday, consider why the form of government in ancient Egypt was different from the form of government in ancient Mesopotamia? What was the Mesopotamian understanding of the function of the state? What was the relation of the many cities within Mesopotamia to the overarching civilization of nation of Mesopotamia?

The course this semester will focus on three significant political thinkers: Machiavelli, Locke, and Marx. Machiavelli may be said to have one foot in the Middle Ages and one in the modern world. Locke (and John Stuart Mill) is considered the father of English liberalism. Marx's writings are one of the principal influences on our contemporary Western political culture. We will study some of the works of these authors, contemporary works by other authors, and works directly addressing the ideas of these three.

For the Final:

The final exam will consist of three or four essay questions and last two hours at the most. The material that you should study for the final is the following:

Regarding the material on ideologies, we studied two types of material: (1) approaches to political ideologies and ideological movements (Watkins, Minogue, Niemeyer, and Gregor) and (2) primary and secondary accounts of alleged ideologies and ideological movements—Marx's Manifesto, Mussolini's "Doctrine of Fascism," Hitler's "Nation and Race," and accounts of feminist, environmentalist, and "Western Marxist" ideologies.

You should be familiar with the salient details of the ideologies and ideological movements, and you should be able to systematically apply the approaches of Watkins and Minogue to the alleged ideologies and ideological movements. (This requires memorization of the components of Watkins's and Minogue's approaches.)

You should also be able to explain whether the political theory of John Locke and the political manual of Machiavelli meet the criteria of Watkins and Minogue: were they ideologies? Did they contain ideological components? How do they relate to ideological thinking if they, inded, are not ideological themselves?

For the Last Week of Class:

The one-page paper is due Friday. The topic is "Does the theory that Adolf Hitler recounts in the chapter 'Nation and Race' of Mein Kampf meet Frederick Watkins's criteria for identifying an ideology?" Your task is to systematically apply, as explained in class, all five of Watkins's criteria to the material in the chapter and come to a reasonable judgment on whether the criteria, or a sufficient number of them determine that Hitler is—or is not—presenting an ideology. You may come to either conclusion as long as your analysis is reasonable. Your application of the criteria to different passages of the chapter will indicate how well you understand (1) the criteria and (2) what Hitler is saying. Do not force Hitler's statements into a pre-conceived conclusion that the theory is or is not ideological.

Rules/Guidelines for POL 211 Third One-Page Paper.

  1. The paper must, of course, be typed and submitted as a hard copy. Nothing handwritten or emailed will be accepted.
  2. The only sources to be used are (1) the handout of Hitler's chapter that I gave you on Tuesday and (2) the account of Richard Watkins's criteria for an ideology that are on the webpage "Approaches to Political Ideologies," which is directly below this webpage.
  3. The absolute limit is one page. I will not read anything that is not on that one page. Use a twelve point font, preferably Times New Roman, Univers, Garamond, or CG Times, black ink, double-spaced, and the default page margins: typically one inch all around.
  4. You may put a title page on one side of the sheet of paper and your text on the other, or you may simply put your student ID number at the top of the page on which the outline appears. Use only your Marymount Student I.D. number—NOT YOUR NAME. YOUR NAME SHOULD NOT APPEAR ANYWHERE ON THE PAPER. I WANT COMPLETE ANONYMITY. If you violate this anonymity rule, I will not accept the paper and you will receive a zero.
  5. Use the footnote format that I have explained below and in class.
  6. Do not begin the paper with a restatement of the topic. You do not have enough space for wasted words, so get right into a thesis statement and your supporting statements. The paper should be divided into at least two paragraphs.
  7. The deadline is the beginning of class on Friday, May 4th. This means you must come to class: do not put it in the rack on my office door. Do not try to give it to me after class. If you cannot make it to class, you must email a copy of the paper to me by 9:30am Friday and get me a hard copy by Monday the 7th at the latest. I will not read the emailed copy, but will check it against the hard copy after I correct the hard copy. The absence will be excused or unexcused, as appropriate.
  8. I ratchet up the grading of the papers: (1) no grade on the first paper/writing sample, (2) 50-50 writing-content on the second paper so a paper with poor writng but good content (or vice-versa) will still pass, and (3) the writing and content counted together on this third paper so a paper with more than three errors will fail regardless of content.

You need at least five references or footnotes to Hitler's text in this paper. But remember: for Watkins you should not put a reference in a footnote. You may quote or paraphrase the wording of their approaches from my webpage as you would any other source and attribute it to Richard Watkins, but do not cite his book, or me, or my webpage in a footnote. Just assume that what is on the webpage is in fact what Watkins said.

Study the information on quotations and on footnotes in red below. Mistakes on quotes and footnotes will count. Don't make the same mistakes. Remember Albert Einstein's definition of insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results? This is also an excellent definition of stupidity—making the same mistakes over and over again and expecting a higher grade. Don't be stupid! Review your earlier papers. (Studies have shown that most students do not do this. Prove the studies wrong!)

The purpose of the references is to enable me to find the exact passage you are quoting or paraphrasing or otherwise referring to. Titles of works are italicized; titles of articles, essays, and chapters are placed in quotes.

For this paper there is just one source that you shall cite: the handout of Hitler's "Nation and Race" that I gave you. No source should be cited for the elements of Watkins's concept. (My gift to you.) Cite it in footnote one like this:

1Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, "Nation and Race," 35 (or whatever the page number is).

Cite the passage by the page number on which it appears. Subsequent citations must properly use the conventional term "Ibid."

2Ibid., 21.

Remember that in the body of your paper, the footnote number 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 NUMBER. Each footnote itself is punctuated with a final period. Use Ibid. as appropriate. Refer back to the Lippmann essay for examples, or get and use one of the editions of Kate Turabian's Manual for Writers—cheap on abebooks.com. The method of notation in the Lippmann essay is very similar to the Chicago Style method that I am asking you to use. It isn't difficult.

The other punctuation to be mastered at this time is the introduction of quotes. If you introduce them using the word "that" (what Turabian calls run-in quotes), 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 Tuesday, please read the handout on the ideology of Fascism by A. James Gregor in the Gerhard Weinberg's Transformation of a Continent. Extra copies are in the rack on my office door. Also, please review the approaches to ideology by Niemeyer and Minogue on the "Approaches to Political Ideologies" link, directly below this assignment page link. We will apply Minogue's criteria to feminist and Western Marxist thought.

As you read the Gregor article, look for answers to these questions:

For Friday, a one-page analysis of a chapter from Hitler's Mein Kampf, which will be handed out in class. Nazi rise to power.

For the Week of April 23d:

For Friday, please read Benito Mussolini's "Doctrine of Fascism" (complete)(World Future Fund). Pay particular attention to Mussolini's definition of the doctrine, which begins with the paragraph immediately preceding the section on "the rejection of pacifism" and proceeds to the end.

As we discussed in class, the main readings and assignments for the rest of the semester are as follows:

I will also hold another writing workshop on Friday at 2:00pm for those who could not attend Tuesday's. Attendance is entirely voluntary.

You must also study and become familiar with the three approaches to ideology that I referred to in class: Richard Watkins's five-part approach, Kenneth Mionogue's six-part conception of political ideology, and Gerhart Niemeyer's two models of ideological critique. We used Watkins on Tuesday. We will review Niemeyer and Minogue on Friday and in next week's classes.

You might find the following of some interest:

  1. Timelines of the history of the movement:
  2. A couple of videos of Hitler and Mussolini speeches (I suggest at least the first three or four):

For Tuesday, please read the chapter (and skim the introduction) on radical environmentalism by Richard Ellis. Continue to jot down notes or a rough outline on the chapter, as you have done the past two classes. Your class responses were much, much better on Friday than ever before, and several students have told me that the outlining helped them understand the material and prepare for the class discussion. You really should do this for all your reading assignemnts in all your classes.

I will hand the exams back, also. Outlines

For the Week of April 16th:

For Friday, please read (and outline) the article by Alison Jaggar on "Philosophies of Women's Liberation" that I handed out on Tuesday. Extra copies are in the rack on my office door. The outline is for your use when and if I call on you. It is simple to do for this article. Note the connections of this article to the article by Gottlieb that we went over last Friday.

The outlines on Cohn that I have looked over seem to reflect that you read the chapter, which is good. As I indicated in class, Cohn's chapter was basically a survey of particular documents. Your outlines should be based on the catagorizing the list of documents and commenting briefly on each one.

Thus, your outline of Jaggar's article should be similar. She is surveying different theories of women's liberation or feminism. Your outline should be based on the theories—name them—she discusses in the order she discusses them, indicating how she categorized them, and making a brief mnemonic comment for each one. This is the kind of thing that you should prepare for many of your assignments in this and in other courses.

For Tuesday, please outline Chapter One, "The Tradition of Apocalyptic Prophecy," by Norman Cohn, as I briefed you on Friday. PLEASE NOTE: The handout I gave you also includes Cohn's "Introduction: The Scope of this Book." DO NOT INCLUDE THIS INTRODUCTION IN YOUR OUTLINE!! JUST OUTLINE CHAPTER ONE, "THE TRADITION OF APOCALYPTIC PROPHECY."

From my perspective, the main purpose of this assignment is to demonstrate that you have read and thought about the entire chapter. From your perspective, the main purpose of outlining reading assignments is to identify the different main parts of the text and to indicated how they are related to one another. I am less concerned with the formal organization that you use for the outline itself. I assume that all of you, at some point in high school of college, have had some basic instruction in outlining papers or readings. I gave you another briefing in form on Friday. I will give you a couple of suggestions and formats on this link.

The formal rules for the assignment, which is to be handed in like the other assigned papers, are as follows:

  1. The outline must be typed and submitted as a hard copy. Nothing handwritten or emailed will be accepted.
  2. The absolute limit for your text is one page. I will not read anything that is not on that one page. Use an eleven or twelve point font, preferably Times New Roman, Univers, Garamond, Calibri, or CG Times, black ink, double-spaced, and the default page margins: typically one inch all around.
  3. You may put a title page on one side of the sheet of paper and your text on the other, or you may simply put your student ID number at the top of the page on which the outline appears. Use only your Marymount Student I.D. number—NOT YOUR NAME. YOUR NAME SHOULD NOT APPEAR ANYWHERE ON THE PAPER. I WANT COMPLETE ANONYMITY. If you violate this anonymity rule, I will not accept the paper and you will receive a zero.
  4. NO FOOTNOTES
  5. The deadline is the beginning of class on Tuesday, April 17th. This means you must come to class: do not put it in the rack on my office door. Do not try to give it to me after class. You must come to class and stay until class is over to get any credit for the paper.
  6. I will take spelling and typographical errors into account (not more than three on the page), but since an outline is not written in sentence-paragraph form, there should be no grammatical or punctuation problems at all on this assignment.

For the Week of April 9th:

For Friday, please finish the Manifesto (parts 3 and 4) and read the Gottlieb excerpt that I handed out. (Extra copies are in the rack on my office door.) We will use this article as a rehearsal for the outlining exercise that will be due on Tuesday.

The Gottlieb piece is important for a couple of reasons. It provides a pretty good review of the history of the organized communist movement through out the 20th century. Gottlieb wrote this in 1987 or 1988, so he could not include the Fall of the Wall and the end of the Soviet Union in the early 90s. Secondly, Gottlieb, a "Western Marxist," reviews the history of communism from a Marxist perspective. Third, Gottlieb's Western Marxism is still alive and well, ever evolving. His book, a collection of Marxist excerpts, includes critiques of communism and Marxist speculations from a number of 20th century writers, and finally focuses on an area of Marxist social-political thought that was particularly promising in the late 20th century, and has certainly proven to be in the years since: feminism. The reading by feminist Alison Jaggar, which I will hand out for next Friday's class (April 20th), will bear this out. He could have included the social-political thought on racism, instead.

Gottlieb's piece is full of allusions to authors and events that are probably unfamiliar to you. Simply work your way through it focusing on the problems with Marxist theory and with Communist practice, and the reasoning of Western Marxists who try to salvage some Marxist ideas and apply them to subjects that Marx did not.

Herbert Marcuse's "Repressive Tolerance".

Finally, for next Tuesday, I will hand out a chapter from Norman Cohn's classic, The Pursuit of the Millennium, to be outlined and handed in on Tuesday, April 17th

We have four more weeks of classes—eight classes. We will focus this month on political ideologies and on the very concept of "ideology" itself. Though there are examples of ideological, as opposed to theoretical or philosophical, thinking all around us, I would like to focus this semester on a couple of the old standbys, Marxism and fascism, with a side trip or two into the world of environmentalism and political correctness.

Let's begin with Marx's Communist Manifesto, which many consider the paradigm of contemporary ideologies. For Tuesday, please read the first and the second (of four) parts of the Manifesto, pp. 54-75 of the assigned Norton Critical Edition. To get us off to a fast start, there will likely be a quiz. We will finish the Manifesto on Friday, along with a handout on contemporary Western Marxism by Gottlieb. Next week we will read a handout of Alison Jaggar's outline of feminism (women's liberation).

The other goal of this month is to come to some conceptual understanding of what "ideology" is. To begin that effort I suggest that you review the "Approaches to Political Ideologies," which is linked immediately below "Western Political Concepts II (Spring 2018)" under "Assignments" on my webpage. You will have to learn a couple of these approaches for the final paper and the final exam. Might as well start looking at them now. The application of a concept or an "approach" to subject matter is a skill like medical diagnosis or legal analysis and is essential the citical analysis (the breaking down and evaluation) of any material.

For the Class of April 6th:

Mid-Term Exam. The exam will be a four-question essay exam that will focus on four of the following topics that we studied over the past month:

  1. Locke's State of Nature: §§1-24 and Hobbes's Leviathan, chapters 13 and 14.
  2. Locke's Theory of Property : §§25-51
  3. Locke's Theory of civil society, the social contract: §§57-62 and §§86-99; Hobbes's Leviathan, chapters 16 & 17; Hume's essay "Of the Original Contract," paragraphs 1-20
  4. Locke's explanation of the structure of government: §§132-168
  5. Locke's theory of the Right of Revolution: §§175-230 and Hobbes's Leviathan, chapter 18 (chapter 21 is also very relevant, but was not assigned. You might want to take a look at it.)
  6. Locke's influence in the American founding era: Dworetz's excerpt in the Norton text

For the Class of March 27th:

As I indicated, we will tie up loose ends on Tuesday: (1) the assigned excerpt from David Hume's "Of the Original Contract"; (2) the Dworetz excerpt in the Locke text, "Locke, Liberalism, and the American Revolution"; and (3) the excerpt from Peter Laslett's introduction in John Locke: Two Treatises of Government that I handed out a few weeks ago (there might be a copy or two in the rack on my office door). We will probably discuss them in that order.

The exam will be on Friday, April 6th. Because you have over a week to prepare, the exam will consist of four essay questions that are more specific than the questions on the first exam. The lack of class discussion has me wondering about how well you are studying the readings.

For the Week of March 19th:

Well, this white stuff has eliminated a writing workshop today (Wednesday) and appointment times for paper reviews. The next paper, therefore, will be assigned after the mid-term.

The subject for Friday will be Locke's theory of rebellion or revolution, found in §§175-230 of the Second Treatise. For Friday, focus particularly on §§175-180, 186, 187, 190, 195; 197-198; 199, 202-204, 207; 211-221; and especially on §§223-230. You should note definitions of the major concepts discussed in these pages: the rights of conquerors (compare to Hobbes, chapter 20 and to chapter 14); "usurpation," "tyranny," justified rebellion.

Declaration of Independence

We will continue with Locke's Second Treatise. I want to cover three more general topics (##4, 5, & 6 in the list below) before the mid-term exam on April 6th:

  1. State of Nature: §§1-24
  2. Theory of Property : §§25-51
  3. Theory of civil society, the social contract: §§57-62 and §§86-99
  4. Structure of Government: §§132-168
  5. Right of Revolution: §§175-230
  6. Consistency of political theory with Locke's epistemology: Laslett's Introduction

The Norton edition does not the relevant sections of Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding necessary to cover the last topic (the consistency of Locke's political theory with his epistemology). We will use Laslett's commentary in place of the Essay.

For Tuesday, please read §§132-168. In particular, focus on the following sections: 132 to 135, 142, 143 to 148, 149 to 155, 156 to 161, and 164 to 166. There are many familiary principles of American government and constitutional law in these sections.

For the Week of March 5th:

For Friday, please (1) review the chapters of Rousseau's Social Contract that I assigned for Tuesday and read David Hume's short essay, "Of the Original Contract," paragraphs 1-20, available on this link.

The assignment for Tuesday is the same as for Friday PLUS this material from Hobbes and Rousseau on social contracts: Hobbes, Leviathan chapters 16-17 and Rousseau's Social Contract, Book I, prefatory paragraph and chapters 1 & 6. Use the links on my main webpage for these readings. The links are under "Western Political Concepts I & II Readings."

For the Week of February 26th:

For Friday, please read pages 40-43 §§57-62) and 53-60 (§§86-99) of the Second Treatise. Proceeding through the Second Treatise is our first priority. Bring the Laslett handout with you; we shall discuss it when we can. We will be comparing Locke's social contract formula with Hobbes's and Rousseau's next week, but you may get a head start if you wish. Hobbes, Leviathan chapters 16-17 and Rousseau's Social Contract, Book I, preface and chapters 1 & 6.

The first few paragraphs or sections assigned deal with the problem of children. The next larger group of sections explain his theory of the formation of a civil or political society.

For Tuesday, please read (1) the handout by Peter Laslett on Locke's Two Treatises and (2) pages 28-39 of the Second Treatise on Locke's concept of property, which has been an extremely important theory in Western thought, including Marx's thought.

I will hand back the papers and discuss them briefly as well. If you have never met with me in POL 210 to go over a paper, you must sign up to meet with me over the next couple of weeks to review this paper. There is a sign-up sheet on my office door with available appointment times for this week and next.

, along with a handout by Peter Laslett that I will give you on Friday.

For the mid-term on Tuesday:

In answering such questions use as much detail, described as specifically as you can, to support your answers. You cannot—and should not try to—memorize the text, but your essays should reflect as much detail from the text—and not from a website—as you can. Getting past the "glittering generalities" to the specifics of the reading is what makes good essays.

Mid-Term Answers

Johnny Locke on Friday! Social Contract Theories

For the Week of February 12th:

For Friday, please read the essay by Sheldon Wolin entitled "The Economy of Violence" in the Prince text.

For Tuesday, please read the following chapters from Hobbes's Leviathan: chapters 13, 14 (on promises, covenants, and contracts), 18 (on the rights or powers of all sovereigns/princes), and 20 (especially the first few paragraphs on the foundations of the authority of conquering sovereigns/princes).

First Mid-Term on Tuesday, February 20th.

For the Week of February 5th:

This week we are going to investigate what Machiavelli's true intention was in writing the Prince. As I mentioned in class, the readings are listed below. For Friday, you should have read all of the materials listed below. The Wootton and Mattingly excerpts are in the handout that I gave you last week

The class discussion Tuesday was well below the level of participation that you set during the previous two weeks. Let's get back up to that level for Friday.

  1. Leo Strauss, "Introduction," Thoughts on Machiavelli (handout)
  2. Garrett Mattingly, "The Prince: Political Science or Political Satire" (abridged)
  3. J.R. Hale, "The Setting of the Prince (text, pp. 139-149)
  4. David Wootton, excerpts from the "Introduction," Machiavelli: Selected Political Writings (handout)
  5. Garrett Mattingly, excerpts from Renaissance Diplomacy (last part of the Wootton handout)

For the Week of January 29th:

We have now reviewed the basic ideas of the Classical, Classical-Christian, and Esoteric traditions. This week we will read the entirety of Machiavelli's Prince: the Preface and chapters 1-13 for Tuesday; chapters 14-26 for Friday. By next week, you will need the Norton Critical Edition for some of the readings that it includes. For this coming week any edition of the Prince will do, but the Norton edition is preferred so that we all are using the same text.

Rather than providing specific study questions for Tuesday's reading assignment, I will ask you to look at the concepts that McKnight focused on in his summary: Machiavelli's concepts of nature, human nature (both philosophical and empirical anthropology), society, and God. In the first half of the Prince, does he convey any clear ideas, either explicitly or by implication, on any of these topics? He certainly discusses society/politics/government and human behavior/human nature at length. Do any other ideas, such as necessity or fortune, come up in his chapters? Note in particular his method of argument, proof, and instruction. How does he make his lessons clear to the reader? Do any of the chapters stand out as more important than others?

I will continue to call on individuals by name, and I will ask general questions about the later chapters in the assignment as well as the earlier chapters, so read the whole thing: it is not difficult to understand.

For the Week of January 22d:

For Friday, we will review this two-page summary of (1) Modern Philosophers' Rejections of Classical Philosophy and (2) the longer handout from Stephen McKnight's Sacralizing the Secular, an account of two paths taken by modern European intellectuals in the years following the Italian Renaissance. It is an important reading: give yourself enough time on Wednesday and Thursday to get through it thoroughly.

As you read McKnight's chapter, consider the following:

  1. What does McKnight mean by "secularlization"?
  2. How does McKnight describe the medieval Christian view of human nature?
  3. How, according to McKnight, does Boccaccio reflect a contrasting secular view of nature? of human nature? of society? of God?
  4. How does Machiavelli reflect a secular view of human nature? of moral or human virtue? of society? of God?
  5. How does McKnight compare Boccaccio to Machiavelli? What is McKnight's point?
  6. How does Galileo reflect a secular view of nature? human nature? of God?
  7. How does Galileo significantly differ from Boccaccio and Machiavelli? How is Galileo's thought similar to the other two?
  8. What does McKnight mean by "sacralization"?
  9. How, according to McKnight, does the thought of the priest and scholar Marsilio Ficino reflect the sacralizing ideas of the Hermetic (or Hermetistic or esoteric) tradition?
  10. How do the Hermetic and Gnostic writings such as the Poemandresand the Aesclepius describe human nature—man's essential nature? How is the nature of God described by the Hermetic and Gnostic writings?
  11. What view does the Hermetic tradition take of earthly society and of social reform?
  12. How does the Hermeticist view of God and man differ from the Gnostic view, as reflected in the Hymn of the Pearl.
  13. According to McKnight, wwhat are the fundamental differences between the secular view of reality and the Hermaetic or sacralizing view?
  14. How do both views contrast with the medieval Christian view?

Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany (1615)

Giovanni Boccaccio (1313-1375), The Decameron (c. 1350)

For Tuesday, please read the handout with excerpts from Aristotle and St. Thomas. Extra copies are in the rack on my office door or you can download the excerpts linked here. Try to relate the subjects that these two authors discuss in the excerpts to the concepts and traditions that we discuss this Friday.

As you read through the excerpts from Aristotle and St. Thomas, representatives of the Classical and Classical-Christian traditions respectively, answer these questions:

  1. According to Aristotle, in the Physics, does it appear that the world in which we live is simply the result of a random collision of atoms, as the Epicureans maintain, or is it a world full of purpose(s), full of meaning: that is, a teleological cosmos?
  2. Does "nature," the part of reality that is not artifact—i.e., which is not man-made—have a purpose? Do natural things have particular purposes or functions?
  3. Turning to the Nicomachean Ethics, does man have a natural purpose?
  4. What is happiness? Is it related to purpose?
  5. According to Aristotle, what is the purpose of government? of laws? of politics?
  6. Is government (the polis or city-state) part of the natural order? Is it a human artifact?
  7. Turning to St. Thomas, who discusses politics and political theory in the language of "law" (=order), is there a purposive order to the natural world? What does he call this overarching principle of cosmic order? What is its source?
  8. According to St. Thomas, what is the "natural law"? Who makes this law?
  9. What does St. Thomas call the particular rules that are made for particular situations? Who makes these laws?
  10. What is the purpose of Divine law? How does it differ from eternal, natural, and human law?

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 follow 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 that are provided.

For Friday, January 19th, please read this short excerpt on the five fundamental conceptions of political philosophy and the four traditions that we track in POL 210-211.

Then write a one-page paper answering one of the following questions, using the rules below, to be handed in at the beginning of class. YOU MUST FOLLOW THE DIRECTIONS BELOW IN THE "RULES/GUIDELINES FOR ONE-PAGE PAPERS" IN ORDER TO PASS. Here are a few tips to help you with this particular paper.

Using the Prince and the assigned chapters from Hobbes's Leviathan, answer one of the following questions:

Based on Leviathan chapter 14, Does Hobbes agree with Machiavelli's statements in the Prince that princes/sovereigns need not keep their promises?

Based on Leviathan chapter 18 (and 20), does Hobbes agree with Machiavelli's assertions about the rights or powers that princes/sovereigns should have?

Rules/Guidelines for One-Page Papers.

  1. The paper must, of course, be typed and submitted as a hard copy. Nothing handwritten or emailed will be accepted.
  2. The only sources to be used are the assigned readings—no other primary or secondary materials—written or oral, internet, paper, or personal—may be used or consulted. This is essentially a closed-book exam. In the paper you will need at least two quotes or paraphrases from Machiavelli's Prince and two quotes or paraphrases from Hobbes's Leviathan, and each must be properly cited in a footnote.
  3. The absolute limit for your text is one page—about 250 words. I will not read anything that is not on that one page. Use an eleven or twelve point font, preferably Times New Roman, Univers, Garamond, Calibri, or CG Times, black ink, double-spaced, and the default page margins: typically one inch all around.
  4. You may put the title page on one side of a sheet of paper and your text on the other, like the one I handed out in class, or you may use two sheets of paper—one sheet for the title page and the second sheet for you text. Use only your Marymount Student I.D. number—NOT YOUR NAME. YOUR NAME SHOULD NOT APPEAR ANYWHERE ON THE TITLE PAGE OR ANYPLACE ELSE ON THE PAPER. I WANT COMPLETE ANONYMITY. If you violate this anonymity rule, I will not accept the paper and you will receive a zero.
  5. Use the footnote format that I explain below and in class. You need at least four footnotes for this paper!
  6. Do not begin the paper with a restatement of the topic. You do not have enough space for wasted words, so get right into a thesis statement and your supporting statements.
  7. The deadline is the beginning of class on Tuesday, February 13th. This means you must come to class: do not put it in the rack on my office door. Do not try to give it to me after class. You must come to class and stay until class is over to get any credit for the paper.
  8. I will ratchet up the grading of the papers: (1) the grade on this first paper/writing sample was based upon (a) following these directions, (b) making a good faith effort, and (c) reflecting the readings in your argument; (2) the grade on the second paper will count the writing & content equally so a paper with lousy writng but good content or vice-versa will (barely) pass; and (3) the writing and content count together on the third paper so a paper with more than three errors will fail regardless of content.

The purpose of the references is to enable me or any reader to find the exact passage you are quoting or paraphrasing or otherwise referring to. For this paper there are only two possible sources for you to cite: (1) Machiavelli's Prince, the ROBERT ADAMS NORTON CRITICAL EDITION and (2) Hobbes's Leviathan. Both are cited by chapter number. For the papers in this class, we will use an abbreviated form of Chicago citation.

Remember the footnote is placed AFTER the last mark of punctuation in the sentence, and the second quotation mark (if you quote something) 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 and Machiavelli. Always end your footnote with a period. You may also use the model footnotes on the handout that I gave you in class. You should use "ibid." where appropriate in this paper.

1Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, ch. 2. (Cite Hobbes's work by chapter.)

2Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince, ch. 2. (Cite Machiavelli's work by chapter. YOU MUST USE THE ADAMS TEXT OF THE PRINCE.)

3Leviathan, ch. 3. (Hobbes again: same work, different chapter.)

4Ibid. (A reference to the exact same source—author, title, the location in the text: Hobbes, Leviathan, chapter 3—as the previous note. "Ibid." refers back to the source in the previous footnote.)

5Prince, ch. 10. (Machiavelli's Prince again.)

The other punctuation to be mastered is the introduction of quotes. If you introduce them using the word "that" (what Turabian calls run-in quotes), 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 societies is the history of class struggles." Here, a comma follows the verb "said," and the first word of the sentence is capitalized. The content of the quotes must be absolutely perfect; proofread the quotes several times to make sure.

One further note: do not use the noun "human" as a synonym for "man" unless you are specifically distinguishing between a human trait (note the adjective here) and a divine or animal trait. The noun "human" implies this distinction. In this discipline, the noun "man" is the standard reference in works of political theory and philosophy. Also, use the word "divine" as an adjective only: it is not a synonym for "God or "a god."

The material below is from past semesters of POL 210 and 211.

Welcome to the course! This is a course that studies some of the basic concepts of Western political thinkers from Plato through Hobbes. The purpose is to help you understand the fundamental questions that our greatest political theorists and philosophers address in their writings and to indicate how several great traditions of philosophy generally answer those questions.

For the Week of December 4th:

For Friday, please read the handout on the ancient Egyptian and Mesopotamian societies in Before Philosophy. One last quiz is a good possibility.

The question for the one-page paper that will be due on Tuesday, December 5th is this: How does the Classical conception of politics depend upon the Classical conceptions of ontology, epistemology, anthropology, and ethics? The final exam will ask similar questions about the other three traditions that we have been studying. These demonstrations of the interrelated nature of the five conceptions is, and has always been, the main objective of this course, POL 210.

The topic is a demonstration of how the Classical conception of politics depends upon the Classical conceptions of ontology, epistemology, anthropology, and ethics. Let me make a couple of suggestions on how to proceed.

First, go to the "Politics Readings" page of the "Readings for Western Political Concepts I (Fall 2016-17)" link on this website and review the basic elements of a theory or conception of politics. Start with that: your paper should focus on how the two basic elements of the Classical conception of politics depend on the other four fundamental conceptions that we have been studying. Use this paper to really figure out how the different ideas/conceptions that we have been studying fit together. Try to process this information to understand it. The five conceptions form one coherent whole. Really!

Then proceed in one of two ways: either explain how the Classical conception of politics is tied to the Classical conception of ethics, then how it is tied to the Classical conceptions of philosophic and empirical anthropology, then how it is tied to the Classical epistemology, and finally how it is tied to the Classical ontology/cosmology. OR you may proceed by explaining how the Classical conception of politics is tied first to Classical ontology/cosmology, then to Classical epistemology, then to Classical anthropology (philosophic and empirical), and finally to Classical eithics. I suggest that you review the introductory paragraphs of the links to "Cosmology-Ontology Readings," "Epistemology Readings," and the rest of the readings pages and also to the sections on those pages devoted to the Classical tradition.

The paper should then summarize in one sentence each the five fundamental conceptions of the Classical tradition and for each summary sentence include a second sentence paraphrasing or quoting from one of the Classical readings that have been assigned.

The handout on Aristotle is a really good place to start, but your quotes or paraphrases must come from more than just this latest handout. This will require a little research as you look for an appropriate passage to cite from the readings that we studied earlier in the semester:

These readings have lots of passages that capture the essence of Classical ontology, epistemology, and so on. Tie them all into a coherent, readable whole, expressed in a couple of paragraphs. Do not simply describe the five conceptions in a numbered list: you must write a readable paper, not a list of quotes. You must supply the transition comments that explain how each conception depends on the next.

Rules/Guidelines for One-Page Papers.

  1. The paper must, of course, be typed and submitted as a hard copy. Nothing handwritten or emailed will be accepted.
  2. The only sources to be used are the assigned readings—no other primary or secondary materials—written or oral, internet, paper, or personal—may be used or consulted. This is essentially a closed-book exam.
  3. The absolute limit is one page—about 250 words. I will not read anything that is not on that one page. Use an eleven or twelve point font, preferably Times New Roman, Univers, Garamond, Calibri, or CG Times, black ink, double-spaced, and the default page margins: typically one inch all around.
  4. The entire paper must fit on one sheet of paper, like the one I handed out in class: title page on one side, your text and footnotes on the other. Use only your Marymount Student I.D. number—NOT YOUR NAME. YOUR NAME SHOULD NOT APPEAR ANYWHERE ON THE TITLE PAGE OR ANYPLACE ELSE ON THE PAPER. I WANT COMPLETE ANONYMITY. If you violate this anonymity rule, I will not accept the paper and you will receive a zero.
  5. Use the footnote format that I explain below and in class. You need at least five footnotes for this paper!
  6. Do not begin the paper with a restatement of the topic. You do not have enough space for wasted words, so get right into a thesis statement and your supporting statements.
  7. The deadline is the beginning of class on Tuesday, December 5th. This means you must come to class: do not put it in the rack on my office door. Do not try to give it to me after class. You must come to class and stay until class is over to get any credit for the paper.
  8. I will ratchet up the grading of the papers: (1) the grade on the first paper/writing sample was based upon (a) following these directions, (b) making a good faith effort, and (c) reflecting the readings in your argument; (2) the grade on the second paper will count the writing & content equally so a paper with lousy writng but good content or vice-versa will (barely) pass; and (3) the writing and content count together on this third paper so a paper with more than three errors will fail regardless of content.

The purpose of the references is to enable me or any reader 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 are by chapter number. (3) Passages from Plato are cited by Stephanus numbers. (4) Passages from Aristotle are to book and chapter number. Book numbers in Roman numerals; chapter numbers in Arabic numerals in all these cases, just like in the linked text.

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 Lucretius, Hobbes, Plato, Aristotle, and St. Augustine. Always end your footnote with a period. You may also use the model footnotes on the handout that I gave you in class. You must use "ibid." where appropriate in this paper.

1Plato, Republic, 444c. (Cite Plato's work by Stephanus numbers, the numbers in brackets in the text that precede what you are quoting or paraphrasing.)

2Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, I.7.

3Plato, 506(b) OR Republic, 506(b). (A reference to a work that was cited earlier. Either reference is correct since only one work by Plato was used.)

4Aristotle, Politics, III.4 (We cited Aristotle before, but not his Politics, so both the author and the title must be included.)

5Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods, II.6. (Cite this work by Cicero by book number and chapter number.)

6Politics, I.2. (Previously cited source but a different passage.)

The other punctuation to be mastered is the introduction of quotes. If you introduce them using the word "that" (what Turabian calls run-in quotes), 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 societies is the history of class struggles." Here, a comma follows the verb "said," and the first word of the sentence is capitalized. The content of the quotes must be absolutely perfect; proofread the quotes several times to make sure.

One further note: do not use the noun "human" as a synonym for "man" unless you are specifically distinguishing between a human trait (note the adjective here) and a divine or animal trait. The noun "human" implies this distinction. In this discipline, the noun "man" is the standard reference in works of political theory and philosophy. Also, use the word "divine" as an adjective only: it is not a synonym for "God or "a god."

For the Week of November 27th:

For Friday, please read the handouts from St. Augustine's On the Free Choice of the Will and St. Thomas's Summa Theologica. We will focus on understanding the different kinds of law—eternal, natural, human, and divine—that these writers refer to and that were commonly known throughout the Middle Ages. "Law" is generally a synonym for "order" in these writings, and "law" is also the result of a command or dictate of the legislator. Since God created the cosmos or "commanded" it to exist, the "natural order" of cosmological speculation can be understood to be the "natural law" of Christian cosmology.

When reading the St. Augustine excerpt, ask how and why sin differs from moral wrong and how they are or should be the same.

The readings from St. Thomas Aquinas are parts of his Summa Theologica, a 3500-page summary of Christian theology heavily influenced by Aristotle ("the Philosopher"), Plato, and St. Augustine ("the Theologian"). Your assignment is a bit shorter than that. Read the articles in Questions 91 and 94 and answer the following questions.

  1. Is there a "natural law"? What is it?
  2. Is there a "human law"? What is it? Howq does it differ from the natural law?
  3. Is there a "divine law"? What is it? What is its purpose?

Question: What kind of reality does St. Augustine add to Epicurean and to Classical ontology, and what method or means of knowing that reality does he add to Epicurean epistemology and Classical epistemology?

We head into the home stretch this week with four classes devoted to the conception of politics of the Epicurean, Classical, and Classical-Christian traditions. Please read chapters 16, 17, and 18 of Thomas's Hobbes's Leviathan, linked here. ONLY chapters 16, 17, and 18 are assigned; read more if you wish. Study questions.

To encourage you to read the assignments more closely, I will also be giving short quizzes on the reading assignments for the remainder of the semester. The questions will be based on the beginning, the middle, and the end portions of the assignments.

I will also give you the topic for the final one-page paper, due Tuesday, December 5th, which will ask you to tie together all five fundamental conceptions of one of the traditions that we have been studying. This is where the whole course has been heading.

Social Contract Theories

For the Class of November 21st:

Test will be returned. Please read the material I handed out by Jonas, Knox, Cohn, and Mahé. There are study questions for this reading at the bottom of the "Ethics Readings" page. Answer Outlines

For the Week of November 13th:

The Aristotle handout for Friday. Compare Aristotle's discussion of pleasure and pain with Epicurus's discussion. Compare Aristotle's conception of a good i.e., virtuous, man with Epicurus's and Hobbes's.

We begin the last month (seven classes) by studying the ethical writings of several of the traditions. On the "Readings for Western Political Concepts I" page click on "Ethics Readings." Please read the commentary that I provide, and read Epicurus's Principal Doctrines under "1. Epicurean Ethics." It's short. You deserve a break.

I will try to have the exams graded by Friday, but if I cannot (I must also grade the POL 104 and POL 335 mid-terms this week), I will definitely return them to you before Thanksgiving Break.

For the Week of November 6th:

Mid-Term on Friday. Form your study groups now.

The exam will be an essay exam with three or four essay questions. The exam—and the course—focuses on how each of the traditions that we have been studying build a complete theory of politics from a foundation of ontology, to an epistemology or theory of knowledge that explains how that fundamental reality can be known, to an understanding of the nature of man—how we fit into the cosmos, into the fundamental reality affirmed by each tradition. This philosophical anthropology is the level that we have now reached in the course. We will go on in the classes after the exam to see the ethics and politics that each tradition develops out of this foundation.

You should ask and determine how each tradition's conception of man—its philosophical anthropology—is related to its epistemology and its ontology. How is the epicurean materialist ontology reflected in its epistemology (what can we know and how do we know it, and what can't we know?), and in its understanding of our very nature. Ask and answer the same questions for the Classical, the Classical-Christian, and the two elements of the esoteric tradition—the gnostic and the Hermeticist. Once you have a basic grasp of this three-part relationship in each tradtition, you are able to compare one tradition to the others. We have been talking about this constantly during the past few weeks. Though we have focused on epistemology and anthropology, you should see how any discussion of these two conceptions must be based upon a recognition of the distinctive ontology that is at the base of each tradition. I hope that you have also been reading the entire assignments upon which these class discussions are supposed to be based.

The exam questions will ask about the you to show how the traditions relate philosophical anthropology to epistemology (and ontology) and will ask you to compare one tradition's theory of this relation to another tradition's theory. As you study, start with the tradition that makes most sense to you and then look at the other traditions and try to see how those traditions connect these conceptions to one another.

As always, I will look primarily for evidence that you have read the assignments, not that you have come to class and simply tried to soak up the discussion of others.

For Tuesday, please read the handout which includes In Quest of the Priceless Pearl and excerpts from Oration on the Dignity of Man. Use the questions under "Esoteric Anthropologies" on the "Anthropology Readings" page to help you focus on the main points.

I urge all of you to make sure that you catch up on all of the readings while you have time before the exam. The mid-terms that fail are the ones that show little or no evidence of familiarity with the content of the readings. Spitting back to me information that I give you in class will not earn a passing grade. The biggest problem with the content of the papers that I just handed back was that most of the footnotes cited material from the first or second page of the assigned readings, not from the later pages of the assignment. A lot of the cited material, such as Book VI chapter 2 of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, does not even discuss epistemology. I concluded that you were only reading a page or two of the assigned readings, perhaps hoping to pick up information in class about the rest of the readings. This won't work. I will try to ask questions that depend on material that was in the readings but that we did not discuss in detail in the class sessions.

What the exam will ask of you is not only an understanding and comparison of the epistemologies and anthropologies of the four traditions, but also how the two concepts are related to each other within the traditions. Don't try to memorize this material: try to process it for yourself, to actually understand how the philosophical anthropology of a tradition is related to the epistemology and the ontology of that tradition. Think about the material a little bit in addition to reading it.

For the Week of October 30th:

For Friday, please read the "City of God excerpts on anthropology," linked under "3. Classical-Christian anthropology" on the "Anthropology Readings" webpage (which you should be using as a study guide!). Use the questions in "3. Classical-Christian anthropology" as study questions.

The people have spoken: I am ordering books on Machiavelli and Locke (among others) for the second semester. Thank you!

The one-page paper mystery has been solved. I will return them Friday.

Test next Friday. Gnostic Hymn of the Pearl and Hermeticist "Oration on the Dignity of Man" for Tuesday.

No surprises: please read the handout on Plato's anthropology. For study questions, use the questions accompanying the link to the assigned reading on the "Anthropology Readings" page of the "Readings for Western Political Concepts I (Fall 2016-17)" page.

For the Week of October 23d:

For Friday, we begin the study of anthropology—philosophical and empirical. Please fo the "Anthropology Readings" link of "Readings for Western Political Concepts I (Fall 2016-17)" and read the two short introductory paragraphs and the selections from Lucretius and Hobbes (not Rousseau) that are listed in the section headed "1.Epicurean anthropology." Hobbes chapter 13 and part of chapter 6 is linked there, but you will need your hard copy Lucretius books for the readings from On the Nature of the Universe.

For Tuesday, please read (1) the material on the Gnostic idea of gnosis in the handout by Hans Jonas and (2) the rest of the tract called Poemandres that we looked at last month. I think we read the first 15 sections of it, so finish the rest. As I said in class, try to focus on the nature of the "knowledge" that the Gnostics and the Hermeticists prize. What is it knowledge of?

For the Week of October 16th:

Checklist

  1. Do you compare and contrast St. Augustine's views on epistemology and ontology to both the Epicurean views and the Classical views? (Only a couple of sentences on each are necessary, but they should reflect your careful consideration of most of the five writers that we have studied since the mid-term.)
  2. Do you include at least five references (footnotes) in the paper?
  3. Are at least two from the St. Augustine readings and at least one each from three other sources?
  4. Are they in proper form?
  5. Is the paper about 250 words in length?
  6. Do you use a couple or three paragraphs?
  7. DID YOU PROOFREAD CAREFULLY? DID YOU READ THE PAPER OUT LOUD TO YOURSELF AFTER YOU WROTE IT TO CATCH ERRORS?

Paper due Friday. Exact same rules as before. See the explanation in red below. The St. Augustine reading assignment that must be included in the paper is THIS ONE!! I also put paper copies of this set of excerpts in the rack on my office door. The title begins "Excerpts from St. Augustine�s On Free Choice of the Will." This material must be reflected in your paper.

In our study of Epicurean epistemology and Classical epistemology, we noted that the Classical philosophers added a faculty or means of knowing to the Epicurean epistemology. (It's what I discussed over and over again during the last two classes.) We also noted that this addition corresponded with the Classical ontological assertion that there was more (an addition level) to reality than the Epicureans maintained. Now, as we move on to Classical-Christian epistemology with the reading of St. Augustine, your paper should address the following question: What kind of reality does St. Augustine add to Epicurean and to Classical ontology, and what faculty or means of knowing that reality does he add to Epicurean epistemology and Classical epistemology?

Please read the handout on Aristotle's intellectual virtues for Tuesday. There are study questions for the reading on the "Epistemology Readings" page. Try to match up the different ways of knowing things that Aristotle describes with the different ways of knowing things (the stages of the divided line) that Plato describes in the Republic reading we discussed last class. We will also finish the discussion of Plato's myth or parable of the cave, which we did not get to last time.

Don't forget to sign up for an appointment if you have not done so. There is a sign-up sheet on my office door with a few slots still open. As announced, this coming week is the last week to do so. No one signed up for any of the six slots that were available on Friday.

There will be another one-page paper due on Friday. The paper will cover the epistemologies of the Epicureans, Classical philosophers, and St. Augustine (I will hand out the St. Augustine reading on Tuesday). I will give you the exact paper question/topic on Tuesday.

For the Class of October 13th:

The reading assignment is the handout from Plato's Republic on the divided line and the myth of the cave. Use the study questions that are linked on the "Epistemology Readings" page to help you work through the material.

I posted a sign-up sheet on my office door, Ireton G107. Only sign up for a Wednesday appointment if you cannot schedule one for a Tuesday or a Friday. Sign up soon: the only days left for an appointment are Wednesday and Friday of this week and Tuesday and Wednesday of next week. After that , you simply lose two points from your final grade.

We will have the writing workshop on Wednesday at 2:00pm. I am tentatively scheduling it for the conference room in Ireton (come to my office), but I would appreciate it if a couple of you would check out Gailhac or Rowley on Wednesday before you come to Ireton to see if there are any vacant classrooms available. We will discuss basic punctuation and punctuating quotations.

For the Week of October 2d:

For Friday, please read chapters 1-6 of Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan, a link for which can be found on the "Epistemology Readings" web page. Us the study questions that are also linked in the same paragraph on the web page. Try to compare and contrast Hobbes's views on how we know things and what we can know with those of Lucretius.

A sign-up sheet for discussing your paper is posted on my office door, Ireton G107. Because the next paper is due on the 20th, you must meet with me before that date. Failure to meet with me will mean a 2 point or 2 percent deduction from your final grade for the course. Bring your paper with you. Students who have taken POL 211 need not meet with me; we already met when you took POL 211. It's painless.

This week we begin the study of epistemology, the study of what we can know and how we know it. Begin by reading the introductory materials on the "Epistemology Readings" page on the "Readings for Western Political Concepts I (Fall 2016-17)" link just below this link. The assignment for Tuesday is the readings on Epicurean epistemology by Lucretius. The book and line numbers are listed on the "Epistemology Readings" page under #2. We will also review what Eliade and the Frankforts said about epistemology. See you Tuesday.

For the Week of September 25th:

The mid-term will consist of four essay questions, each requiring an essay of two-to-three blue book pages. You will have about 20 minutes for each question, so you must budget your time very carefully. One will focus on Epicurean cosmology or ontology, one on Classical cosmology or ontology, one on Classical-Christian cosmology or ontology, and one on Gnostic cosmology or ontology. Each question will also ask you to compare or contrast some aspect of one of these cosmologies to another cosmology, including perhaps the ancients' cosmology. The questions will be very focused; the essays should not be spill-your-guts, everything-I-can-think-of essays. A good answer directly addresses and responds to each part of the question with accurate information from the readings. You must show me that you have read the assigned material.

For the mid-term, you should review or—if you have not done so already—read all of the materials that were assigned thus far in the course. My exams focus on the readings and are tests of your familiarity with, and ability to explain accurately and coherently, the readings, not my class comments. I will post a bit more information here over the weekend, but most of the information that I give you on the exam I will give you in class, not here. I suggest that you use the information in the latter part of the "Introduction to Political Theory" essay and on the "Cosmology-Ontology Readings" link—especially the first two paragraphs—as study guides.

Bring a couple of pens and your student ID number!

Reading assignments for Tuesday.

The reading assignment for Tuesday is (1) the first fifteen parts of the Poemandres handout and (2) the excerpt from Han Jonas's The Gnostic Religion. Extra copies of both handouts are in the rack on my office door.

For the Week of September 18th:

I'll have your papers corrected and handed back by next Tuesday.

We enter the wild world of Gnosticism on Friday with the Apocryphon of John. Extra copies of the handout are in the rack on my office door. Typical of Gnostic texts, the Apocryphon presents itself as a lost gospel from the New Testament. It is not. It claims to have been written by the apostle John; it was not. The Apocryphon elaborates a full cosmogony-cosmology of the Valentinian type of Gnosticism. I think you will find it entertaining. Try to figure out the structure of the universe, according to the Gnostics. Did God make the world? Was the world good in God's eyes?

One major concern of the Valentinian Gnostics is the origin of evil. Clearly evil exists, but just as clearly God is good and could not possibly create something that was not good. So where does evil come from? The Apocryphon attempts to answer this question by explaining the origins of the world in which we live.

Remember, we are looking at documents that contain ontological and cosmological discussions: what is the ontology of the author of the Apocryphon? What is the fantastic cosmology? the cosmogony? And who is this "Barbelo" person, anyway? What does she have to do with the world? or with Sophia? or Yaltabaoth? or you, for that matter?

Ignoring the details for a moment, what is distinctively different about the Gnostic conception of the cosmos? How does it differ from the Christian conception as found in St. Augustine's writings? From Aristotle's or Cicero's classical conception in the Metaphysics and the De re publica? (bring those readings along and we will discuss them.) And from Lucretius's conception?

This assignment, along with the other assignments so far, is set out on the link immediately below this assignment page link entitled "Readings for Wetern political Concepts I (Fall 2014)" under "Cosmology-Ontology Readings." The future assignments for the course are listed, too, under the relevant headings. Take a look.

For Tuesday, (1) the handout I gave you on Classical-Christian cosmology and (2) the paper.

For the reading assignment, you must read only the material by St. Augustine. We will go over the material on the last page by St. Thomas in class.

For the paper, I have amended the rules below to conform to the new one-sheet-of-paper model that I handed out to you. As I suggested on Friday, if the format for the paper or the use of footnotes is new to you, simply imitate the format and the footnote notation on the model paper I gave you. Review the rules carefully. Follow them and you will do OK; do not follow them and you will fail. AND REMEMBER, your paper must include an intelligent comment and a reference to the material by St. Augustine that is assigned for Tuesday.

I believe I explained all the details of the paper assignment and answered your questions as best I can during class on Friday.

For Friday the 22d, a Gnostic classic!

For the Week of September 11th:

This week we will study the conceptions of cosmology and ontology in the Epicurean and the Classical traditions. The reading assignments are pretty long, so allow yourself plenty of time to read and re-read them.

For Friday, we will use the excerpts I handed out from Classical writers (also linked in paragraph #3 of the "Readings on Ontology and Cosmology" page) and the study questions on that page, just like we did for Lucretius. NOTE: YOU ONLY NEED TO READ (1) THE FIRST EXCERPT FROM ARISTOTLE, (2) THE NEXT TWO EXCERPTS FOM CICERO'S WORKS, AND (3) THE THIRD EXCERPT FROM EPICTETUS'S DISCOURSES. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO READ THE EXCERPTS FROM MARCUS AURELIUS OR THE LAST EXCERPT FROM ARISTOTLE'S METAPHYSICS! I'm cutting you a break here!

For the rest of the semester, you should follow these steps for each class: FIRST, on my main webpage, click on the link which is entitled "Readings for Western Political Concepts I (Fall 2016-17)," which is directly below this assignment link. Then click on the first link entitled "Cosmology-Ontology Readings." The page that appears is the introduction to this month's readings in cosmology and ontology—everything you need to read for the first exam. Please read at least the two introductory paragraphs and the paragraphs under numbers 1, 2, and 3: the pre-philosophic understanding (1) and the Epicurean (2) and Classical (3) conceptions of cosmology and ontology.

SECOND, for Tuesday, go to the paragraphs at #2 for the assigned excerpts from Lucretius's On the Nature of the Universe, translated by Latham and Godwin, and the study questions. (You must use the paperback edition of this book that I cited on the syllabus.) The assignment is about 27 pages long. Because the study questions cover the material pretty closely, you might want to start with them and look up the answers to each question in the assigned readings. Or, you can read the assignments and then use the study questions. Your choice.

Of course, we will proceed through the five linked subjects on the "Readings for Western Political Concepts I (Fall 2016-17)" page. Not all readings have study questions attached.

For the Week of September 4th:

For Tuesday, please finish the essay entitled "Introduction to Political Theory" and read the handout by Mircea Eliade entitled The Sacred and the Profane, "Introduction." Extra copies of both (and of the syllabus) are in the rack on my office door, Ireton G107. The "Introduction to Political Theory" essay is also posted on the website just below this assignment page.

In the essay, we introduced the five basic philosophical conceptions last class, and the remaining part of the "Introduction to Political Theory" contains fuller accounts of each conception. We will briefly review the concepts of theory, philosophy, and the four (or five, or six) traditions that we will be following this semester.

In the introduction to Eliade's famous book, we will explore his account of ancient (or primitive or tribal) cosmology and its possible origins. Eliade was one of the most famous cultural anthropologists of the 20th century.

For Friday, please read pages 11 to the asterisk on page 29 and also the last two paragraphs of the essay by Henri and H.A. Frankfort entitled "Myth and Reality" (from a book entitled Before Philosophy) that I handed out on Tuesday. (Extra copies ["Before Philosophy"] are in the rack on my office door, Ireton G107.) This essay also explores the ancient understanding of the cosmos and the pre-philosophic myth-making or "mythopoeic" epistemology. It's another famous essay. You will notice that Rudolf Otto's book, The Idea of the Holy, which was the main inspiration for Eliade, is listed in the essay's suggested readings on that last page.

Here are Study questions for both the Eliade excerpt and the Frankforts' excerpt. Use them! Be sure to look up all the words that you are unfamiliar with.

I am going to tinker with the syllabus schedule already and move the date for the first paper back a class to Tuesday, September 19th, instead of the Friday, September 15th, date listed in the syllabus, and the second paper from October 13th to October 20th. That will give me enough time to explain the assignment in some detail."

For Friday, September 1st, 2017:

The assignment for Friday's class is the essay entitled "Introduction to Political Theory" that was handed out in class. Please read up to the section on "Philosophic Traditions." Extra copies of the handout, as well as extra copies of the syllabus, will be available tomorrow in the rack on my office door: Ireton G107. You should come to class with an idea of meaning of "theory," the meaning of "philosophia," the meaning of "wisdom," and the five fundamental conceptions of political philosophy. I will be asking you a lot of questions, not lecturing.

The material below is from past semesters of both POL 210 and 211. You may review it if you wish.

For the FINAL:

Exam will be in the usual classroom at 3:00. The exam will be 90 minutes. Make-up exams for earlier mid-terms may be taken immediately before or after the final.

The final will be comprehensive but will focus a bit more on the material from Bentham, Mill, and Plato that we studied since Easter Break than the other material on Machiavelli and political ideologies. Because there was so little material since the last mid-term, the final will ask you to think about and apply what you have learned throughout the semester to the writers that we have studied throughout the semester.

There will be three essay questions:

If you have read the assignments throughout the course, you should be in good shape if you carefully review Machiavelli, review the ideological approaches that you used on the second mid-term, and study the recent reading assignments by Mill, Bentham, and Plato.

For the Last Week of Class:

For Friday, please read the excerpt from Plato's Gorgias that I gave you in class. Extra copies are in the rack on my office door.

For Tuesday, May 2d, please read chapter 3 and pages 73-82 of chapter 4 of On Liberty. The final one page paper is also due.

The Question that you should address in the final paper is this: Why is freedom of action beneficial to society as a whole? The assigned reading discusses this and the benefit of liberty of action to the individual himself in great detail, so the only material that you need, and the only material that you must cite, is the assigned material for Tuesday.

The usual rules for one-page papers that I handed out to you in class apply to this last paper. I will also take your footnotes into account as part of the grade. You must use "ibids" on this one! See below.

Rules/Guidelines for One-Page Papers.

  1. The paper must, of course, be typed and submitted as a hard copy. Nothing handwritten or emailed (see below) will be accepted.
  2. The only sources to be used are the assigned readings—no other primary or secondary materials—written or oral, internet, paper, or personal—may be used or consulted, either on the content or on the writing of the paper. This is essentially a closed-book exam.
  3. The absolute limit is one page. I will not read anything that is not on that one page. Use an eleven or twelve point font, preferably Times New Roman, Univers, Garamond, or CG Times, black ink, double-spaced, and the default page margins: typically one inch all around.
  4. A title page is required. To the one page paper, attach a title page like this one and the one I handed out in class. Use only your Marymount Student I.D. number—NOT YOUR NAME. YOUR NAME SHOULD NOT APPEAR ANYWHERE ON THE TITLE PAGE OR ANYPLACE ELSE ON THE PAPER. I WANT COMPLETE ANONYMITY. If you violate this anonymity rule, I will not accept the paper and you will receive a zero.
  5. Use the footnote format that I explain below and in class.
  6. Do not begin the paper with a restatement of the topic. You do not have enough space for wasted words. Begin the paper immediately with your thesis statement: "According to Mill, liberty of action benefits society because . . . .
  7. The deadline is the beginning of class on Tuesday, May 2d. This means you must come to class and stay for the whole class: do not put it in the rack on my office door. Do not try to give it to me after class. If you cannot make it to class, you must email a copy of the paper to me by 2:00am Tuesday and get me a hard copy by noon on Wednesday the 3d at the latest. I will not read the emailed copy, but will check it against the hard copy after I correct the hard copy. The absence will be excused or unexcused, as appropriate under the rules of the syllabus.
  8. I will ratchet up the grading of the papers: (1) a good-faith, on-time submission that shows effort will receive the full five points for the first paper, (2) 50-50 writing-content on the second ten-point paper so a paper with lousy writing but good content (or vice-versa) will pass, and (3) the writing and content counted together on this third ten-point paper so a paper with more than three errors will fail regardless of content. Failing to follow any of these directions is also a factor, and a significant factor, in grading the paper.

FOOTNOTES: Really easy for this paper! The purpose of the footnote references is to enable me to find the exact passage of the Wood article you are quoting or paraphrasing or otherwise referring to. Titles of works like On Liberty are italicized; titles of "articles," "essays," and "chapters," like "On Individuality, as One of the Elements of Well-Being," are placed in quotes. You do not have to cite any of Mill's writings by chapter, though; just by book title and page number. At least five references/footnotes are required. Models for all Chicago Style references can be found here.

For this paper there is really only one source to cite—John Stuart Mill's On Liberty, though you may make a reference to Utilitarianism, too, if you find it necessary for your argument. You must use the Oxford University Press edition that we have been using in class. If you do not, your footnotes will be useless to me and will also make me wonder if you have used illicit sources. That is then an Academic Integrity problem.

Remember, in a quote the second quotation mark goes AFTER the final punctuation mark of the sentence, and the footnote number is placed AFTER the last mark of punctuation in the sentence (the second quotation mark). For example: The Frankforts said, "Symbols are treated the same way."1 Or, Marx said, "The history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggles."2 PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE GET THIS SEQUENCE CORRECT: the FINAL MARK OF PUNCTUATION, then the END QUOTATION MARK (if it is a quote), and then the FOOTNOTE NUMBER IN SUPERSCRIPT. Each footnote itself is punctuated with a final period. Use Ibid. as appropriate. It isn't difficult. See the examples below.

Cite Mill's books exactly like this, using the page numbers of the Oxford University Press edition:

1John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 27.

2Ibid., 54. (Subsequent reference to the same book but a different page.)

3Ibid. (Subsequent reference to the same book and the same page as in the immediately preceding footnote. This footnote indicates another reference to page 54 of Mill's On Liberty.)

4Utilitarianism, 125. (In case you use Mill's other work (rare). Since Mill also wrote this one, you need not cite his name in the footnote.)

BTW, Do not use the title of the Oxford edition—On Liberty, Utilitarianism, and Other Essays: Mill never wrote such a collection. This collection was edited and put together by Messrs. Philp and Rosen from works that Mill actually wrote. Just cite On Liberty and, if you must, Utilitarianism.

For the Week of April 24th:

For Tuesday, please chapters 1 & 2 of John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism. I suggest that you also take a look at the biographical material in the introduction to the text. Interesting guy.

As you read Mill's Utilitarianism, ask yourself how Mill's doctrine was similar to Bentham's and, more importantly, how it differed. What was the key difference? Defining hedonism as the ethical doctrine that holds pleasure and pain to be the ultimate standards of conduct, is Bentham a hedonist? Is Mill?

For Friday, please read chapter 1 and pages 18-19, 51-54 of chapter 2 of On Liberty.

For the Class of Friday, April 21st:

In the five classes remaining, we will focus on the works of John Stuart Mill, but we will first start with a reading from his godfather, Jeremy Bentham. Please read chapters 1 & 4 of the Principles of Morals and Legislation.

Jeremy Bentham's Principles of Morals and Legislation, Preface and chapters 1-4.

Mill, "The Contest in America", in Dissertations and Discussions

For the Week of April 3:

The handout by Richard Ellis on radical environmentalism is for Friday. Which of the approaches to political ideologies fits these apocalyptic environmentalist scenarios the best?

Please note: "A volunteer note-taker is needed for this class, to assist a classmate who has a disability. This is an easy job that only requires the note-taker to share their notes within 24 hours after class. Additionally, it is an opportunity to give back to others and it looks great on a resume. The note-taker and the requesting student can each decide whether or not they wish to be openly identified, as a personal choice. "Anyone who is interested in becoming a volunteer note-taker should e-mail access@marymount.edu. Lastly, as a Thank You for their awesome efforts, all note-takers will receive a $100 gift card from Student Access Services at the end of the semester!"

Next Tuesday, April 11th, is the second mid-term (when we return, we will begin a brief study of John Stuart Mill's political ideas). The exam will be an essay exam, as usual, with three questions focusing on the readings and the approaches to ideologies that we have studied in the past few weeks.

  1. Alison Jaggar, "Political Philosophies of Women's Liberation"
  2. Rosemarie Tong, Feminist Thought
  3. John Charvet, Feminism
Here's what you've got to know:
  1. The exam will cover all of the primary and secondary materials listed above.
  2. You should learn Watkins's approach to political ideology and the approach of one other analyst: Cohn, Voegelin, or Minogue. You will have to apply the approach of Watkins and the approach of the second analyst that you choose to ideological material found in the primary and secondary readings listed above. Learn Watkins's approach and one other approach backwards and forwards!
  3. One question will ask you to characterize the difference(s) between ideological and non-ideological "theories" using Jaggar's essay on feminism and Ellis's essay on environmentalism as focal points. Both Jaggar's and Ellis's essays present a variety of positions one can take on women's rights and the environment—from non-ideological to "ideological," as we have used that term; from attitudes of basic fairness and practical reform to rigidly ideological attitudes. You will have to cite details from these two articles
  4. You should also consider (hint, hint) how some of the ideological thought that we have read reflects similarities to the Judeo-Christian apocalyptic myths described by Cohn or how they "sacralize" reality, as explained by McKnight.

As always, I want to see real, detailed evidence that you have read the assignments and have tried to understand the material. Specific, relevant details from the readings in support of your general statements in the essays is the key to a good grade.

There. You now have a good idea of the three questions that will be on the exam and what to study to prepare for the exam.

Two more readings before the exam next week (April 11th): for Tuesday, please read the handout on feminism by Alison Jaggar. I will give you a handout by Richard Ellis on radical environmentalism for Friday. As you read Jaggar, also consider the approach to ideology outlined by Kenneth Minogue, which can be found on the Approaches to Political Ideologies link below Voegelin's "gnostic mass movements" criteria.

For the exam, you must know (1) the components of Richard Watkins's concept of political ideologies and (2) the components of one other approach that we have gone over in class (Cohn's, Voegelin's, Minogue's). Get familiar with these approaches by applying them to each of the reading assignments for this middle segment of the course.

Papers are looking pretty good. Will have all or most of them corrected by Tuesday, and any that I have not corrected by Tuesday will be handed back by Friday.

For the Week of March 27th:

For Friday, please read the excerpt from Stephen McKnight's Sacralizing the Secular, which I handed out before Break. I am sorry; I have no extra copies. If you misplaced yours, get a copy from a classmate. Material from McKnight will be on the exam, so do your best to recover your copy.

The assignment for Tuesday is (1) the handout by Graeme Wood on "What ISIS Really Wants" and (2) a one-page paper that applies one of the approaches to ideology on the "Approaches to Ideologies" that we have been using. The Cohn material on apocalyptic and millenarian myths pertains directly to the paper and your paper may include references to this reading, if you find it relevant.

I would like the following students to apply Watkins's approach (these are in alphabetical order, actually): Max, Anthony, Angela, Micaela, Theo, Patricia, Mary, and Natalie.

I would like the following students to apply Cohn's approach: Jennifer, Dai, Lily, Shelby, Carolina, Shin, and Alisa.

Note: if anyone in either group wishes to apply the Voegelin "gnostic mass movements" criteria to the ISIS material, you may do so. Otherwise, you must use the approach that I have assigned.

The paper is intended to be a simple, straight-forward exercise in systematic application of the elements or criteria of a test/concept/rule to a given subject matter. Orderly, systematic, and reasonable application of the criteria of the approach by Watkins or Cohn (or Voegelin) to the account of the ISIS worldview is the core of this assignment.

I BEG YOU TO READ AND RE-READ ALL OF THE INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PAPER BELOW!!!!! YOU MUST FOLLOW DIRECTIONS; YOU MAY FAIL IF YOU DO NOT!!

Rules/Guidelines for One-Page Papers.

  1. The paper must, of course, be typed and submitted as a hard copy. Nothing handwritten or emailed (see below) will be accepted.
  2. The only sources to be used are the assigned readings—no other primary or secondary materials—written or oral, internet, paper, or personal—may be used or consulted, either on the content or on the writing of the paper. This is essentially a closed-book exam.
  3. The absolute limit is one page. I will not read anything that is not on that one page. Use an eleven or twelve point font, preferably Times New Roman, Univers, Garamond, or CG Times, black ink, double-spaced, and the default page margins: typically one inch all around.
  4. A title page is required. To the one page paper, attach a title page like this one and the one I handed out in class. Use only your Marymount Student I.D. number—NOT YOUR NAME. YOUR NAME SHOULD NOT APPEAR ANYWHERE ON THE TITLE PAGE OR ANYPLACE ELSE ON THE PAPER. I WANT COMPLETE ANONYMITY. If you violate this anonymity rule, I will not accept the paper and you will receive a zero.
  5. Use the footnote format that I explain below and in class.
  6. Do not begin the paper with a restatement of the topic. You do not have enough space for wasted words. Begin the paper immediately with your thesis statement: "The ISIS doctrine is/is not a political ideology according to Richard Watkins's criteria" or "The ISIS doctrine is/is not millenarian according to Norman Cohn's criteria" or "The ISIS movement is/is not a gnostic mass movement according to Eric Voegelin's criteria." Then report your step-by-step application of each criterion of the approach that you are using in two or three paragraphs.
  7. The deadline is the beginning of class on Tuesday, March 28th. This means you must come to class and stay for the whole class: do not put it in the rack on my office door. Do not try to give it to me after class. If you cannot make it to class, you must email a copy of the paper to me by 2:00am Tuesday and get me a hard copy by noon on Wednesday the 29th at the latest. I will not read the emailed copy, but will check it against the hard copy after I correct the hard copy. The absence will be excused or unexcused, as appropriate under the rules of the syllabus.
  8. I will ratchet up the grading of the papers: (1) a good-faith, on-time submission that shows effort will receive the full five points for the first paper, (2) 50-50 writing-content on this second ten-point paper so a paper with lousy writing but good content (or vice-versa) will pass, and (3) the writing and content counted together on the third ten-point paper so a paper with more than three errors will fail regardless of content. Failing to follow any of these directions is also a factor, and a significant factor, in grading the paper.

FOOTNOTES: Really easy for this paper! The purpose of the footnote references is to enable me to find the exact passage of the Wood article you are quoting or paraphrasing or otherwise referring to. Titles of works are italicized; titles of articles, essays, and chapters are placed in quotes.

For this paper there is really only one source to cite—Graeme Wood's article, "What ISIS Really Wants"— unless you want to cite something from the Norman Cohn handout that we discussed in class. As I explained in class, DO NOT ATTEMPT TO CITE the source of Watkins's, Cohn's, or Voegelin's criteria.

Remember, in a quote the second quotation mark goes AFTER the final punctuation mark of the sentence, and the footnote number is placed AFTER the last mark of punctuation in the sentence (the second quotation mark). For example: The Frankforts said, "Symbols are treated the same way."1 Or, Marx said, "The history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggles."2 PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE GET THIS SEQUENCE CORRECT: the FINAL MARK OF PUNCTUATION, then the END QUOTATION MARK (if it is a quote), and then the FOOTNOTE NUMBER IN SUPERSCRIPT. Each footnote itself is punctuated with a final period. Use Ibid. as appropriate. It isn't difficult. See the examples below.

Cite the Wood article this way (use the page numbers of the handout):

1Graeme Wood, "What ISIS Really Wants," The Atlantic, March, 2015, 9.

2Ibid., 12. (Subsequent reference to the same article but a different page.)

3Ibid. (Subsequent reference to the same article and the same pages as in the immediately preceding footnote. This footnote indicates another reference to page 12 of the Wood article."

4Norman Cohn, The Pursuit of the Millennium, rev. ed., 35. (In case you use Cohn's excerpt that I handed out in class.)

Models for all Chicago Style references can be found here.

At least five references/footnotes are required (six if you use Voegelin).

The other punctuation to be mastered is the introduction of quotes. If you introduce them using the word "that" (what Turabian calls run-in quotes), 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 societies is the history of class struggles." Here, a comma follows the verb "said," and the first word of the sentence is capitalized. The content of the quotes must be absolutely perfect; proofread the quotes several times to make sure.

One further note: do not use the noun "human" as a synonym for "man" unless you are specifically distinguishing between a human trait (note the adjective here) and a divine or animal trait. The noun "human" implies this distinction. In this discipline, the noun "man" is the standard reference in works of political theory and philosophy.

Here is an online version of "What ISIS Really Wants," but if you use it you still must get the handout for the page numbers. YOU MUST CITE THE ARTICLE BY PAGE NUMBER!!

Assignment for Friday: McKnight's Sacralizing the Secular excerpt that I handed out before the Spring Break.

For the Week of March 20th:

The reading assignment for Friday is the excerpt from Norman Cohn's The Pursuit of the Millennium. Please read the whole excerpt, but pay cloase attention to chapter one. List the various apocalyptic myths that Cohn describes. I will ask about their similarities and differences. Cohn's criteria of millenarian salvation should apply very neatly to thm. Do Watkins's and Voegelin's approaches fit as well?

We will also continue to relate Marx's and Hitler's "scientific" mythologies to these religious, apocalyptic myths. Bring your copies of the Communist Manifesto and Hitler's chapter to class with you. I will also give you the reading for Tuesday's one-page paper. The reading that I gave you before Break on Sacralizing the Secular will be the assignment for next Friday.

For Tuesday, please (1) read this excerpt from Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf (what does Kampf mean?) and (2) read Eric Voegelin's "Six Characteristics of Gnostic Mass Movements," listed as # 4 (not #1) on the "Approaches to Political Ideologies" link. We will also complete the discussion of the Communist Manifesto, as well. Don't forget to sign up for an appointment to discuss your first paper with me. It's worth 2% of your final grade.

In class, we will apply Watkins's and Cohn's concepts to Hitler's myth or account of the world. We will also review the Voegelin approach and apply it to Hitler and Marx.

As you read the Manifesto try to answer the following questions. As you read Hitler's chapter, ask yourself if there are counterparts in his account to the particular ideas in Marx's account.

  1. In the first section of the Manifesto, "Bourgeois and Proletarians," what theory of history does Marx present?
  2. Who or what are the bourgeoisie?
  3. Who or what are the proletarians or the proletariat?
  4. What is the foundation of all history, politics, and civilization?
  5. What are the laws of history, according to Marx?
  6. What do Marx and Engels expect to happen soon?
  7. In the second section, "Proletarians and Communists," who are the communists and what is their relation to the proletarians?
  8. What is the problem with "property"? all property?
  9. What is the foundation of human culture?
  10. What is the proletarian programme (to borrow the Brit spelling)?
  11. In the third section of the Manifesto, "Socialist and Communist Literature," what is Marx's main criticism of all other socialist or communist theories?
  12. A "manifesto" is a statement in support of a call to action: what is the call to action in Marx's manifesto? (Section four of the Manifesto).

For the Week of March 13th:

For Tuesday, please finish the Communist Manifesto. Pay close attention to the mytho-historical scheme Marx describes in Parts I and II, and the alternative forms of socialism in Part III. Part IV contains the political agenda of the Communists. Please review Voegelin's, Watkins's, and Cohn's concepts of ideology and ideological salvation on the Approaches to Political Ideologies link.

For the Week of February 27th:

I hope the exam was what you expected it to be. I tried to stick close to the script.

On Friday, we begin the next major section of the course: the study of political ideologies. Friday's class will be the introduction to this section of the course. This section is a bit different from the first section. The paper and the exam will be different. You will be required to apply given concepts or conceptual approaches to different examples of ideology. It is important to get off on the right footing, so there are two reading assignments for Friday. First, please read pages 29-46 of the required Pathfider edition of the Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels, and, second, please read the intro and parts 1 (Voegelin) and 2 (Kramnick and Watson) on this Approaches to Political Ideologies link. See you Friday!

Mid-Term Exam Tuesday. The exam will consist of four relatively short essays rather than two long ones.

The main assignments over the past month have been Machiavelli's Prince, excerpts from works by Leo Strauss, Sheldon Wolin, Garrett Mattingly, and Philip Bobbitt, and a few readings from other works of Machiavelli. We also read Robert Adams's "Historical Introduction" to The Prince. At the beginning of the semester, we read the introduction to political theory, excerpts from Aristotle and St. Thomas, and excerpts from Hobbes and Locke. I will assume that you know the vocabulary outlined in the introductory essay that we read (as well as in the other readings), that you have a pretty good idea of the basic philosophical outlooks that we label "Classical" and "modern" from the excerpts that we read before turning to Machiavelli, and that you have a basic—very basic—understanding of the historical situation in which Machiavelli lived and wrote from the readings of Adams and Bobbitt. There will be no separate questions on these writers, but you should use this stuff in your essays. Show me that you are tying things together, that you are working through the ideas and arguments and not just desperately trying to memorize details.

On the main readings, rather than ask you compare-contrast type questions, I will ask four straightforward questions on (1) the assigned writings of Machiavelli, (2) Leo Strauss's criticism of Machiavelli, (3) Garrett Mattingly's interpretation of The Prince, and (4) Sheldon Wolin's interpretation of Machiavelli's political science. The questions will be in that order. The first question will be aimed directly at your understanding of Machiavelli's writings—The Prince, the letters that were assigned, and the sections of The Discourses that were assigned. You must be able to give some reasons from the texts to support your answer. On the three named commentators, I will ask you (1) to explain their interpretations of Machiavelli; I will also ask you (2) whether you agree with each and (3) why. You must be able to present a plausible reason or two for your opinion in a full paragraph. I expect each essay should be about three pages long. You will have 80 minutes for the exam if you get there on time.

This is more detail about exams than I usually give, but most of you seem to be new to political theory, so I want to let you know exactly what to expect. Again, this kind of material should be chewed and digested, not memorized. Strauss's, Mattingly's, and Wolin's intelligent arguments should make sense to you, even if they cannot all be correct (can they?) or if you do not agree with each of them. Try to figure out exactly what each is arguing and, from your readings of Machiavelli, whether you think their arguments are sound. For Machiavelli—better read the Discourses material if you have not already.

Here is a video on Machiavelli you might find useful.

I truly hope this is helpful.

For the Week of February 20th:

Sorry for this late posting. As announced, please (1) review chapter 13 of Hobbes's Leviathan, which was handed out some weeks ago, (2) the letter to Francesco Vettori (pp. 1-4 of Wootton text), and (3) these pages and chapters of Machiavelli's Discourses, found in the Wootton text (Roman numberal ius the book, Arabic numeral is the chapter)—pp. 81-82 (letter dedicatory; compare it to the letter dedicatory to The Prince), Book I. Preface, chapters 2, 10, 26, 55; Book II. Preface, chapter 1.

Do these readings give you a different opinion of Machiavelli? Do they reveal that he is a champion of republics as opposed to principalities? of good rules rather than tyrants?

The assignment for next Tuesday (the 21st) will be the handout of an excerpt from Philip Bobbitt's book, The Shield of Achilles. Extra copies are available in the rack on my office door. Look up the words that you do not know!

On Thursday we will review Hobbes's chapter 13 of Leviathan and perhaps one other short excerpt. The mid-term will be on Tuesday the 28th.

Wikipedia on the trace italienne.

For the Week of February 13th:

For Friday, February 17, please read the excerpt from Sheldon Wolin that I handed out in class. What does Wolin mean by an "economy" of violence? An economy based on violence? A minimization of violence? What attitude does Wolin seem to have toward Machiavelli—favorable? unfavorable? approving? disapproving? Same as Strauss's? What is Wolin's main point or points?

Wonderful discussion on Friday. I will call on the few of you who have not volunteered. I'd love to have more discussions as good as that one.

Let me switch up the assignments for this week. I found the Garrett Mattingly article that I was looking for online, and I want to give you the longer assignments over the weekend, when you have more time to read them. This assignment is not too long, but it is a bit longer than the Wolin excerpt. So please read (1)"The Prince: Political Science or Political Satire" by Garrett Mattingly and (2) in your copy of The Prince by David Wootton, pages xvi-xxiii (last paragraph on xvi up to and including the first paragraph of xxiii. I will ask you questions to see how well you are understanding the words on the page, so use dictionaries and look up words that you don't know.

In addition, try to determine

  1. What is Mattingly's main point in his article?
  2. What is the best evidence that Mattingly adduces in support of his point?
  3. Does Mattingly's argument persuade you?
  4. What is Wootton's interpretation of the reason that Machiavelli wrote The Prince?
  5. What is Wootton's best evidence in support of his argument?
  6. Does Wootton's argument appear to be correct?
  7. If Wootton is correct, does this refute Mattingly's argument, or not?

For the Week of February 6th:

For Friday, please read the excerpt from Leo Strauss that I handed out in class. You should take a look Machiavelli's little speech that is in the handout, too, but the Strauss excerpt is the most important.

For Tuesday, please finish the Prince (through page 80) and be sure to read any of the earlier parts of the Prince if you missed them.

For the Week of January 30th:

We will cover (please read!) chapters 11-20 of the Prince. Here is the writing assignment due Friday. You must have/use the Wootton text and translation for this assignment. Though I should not have to say this to college students, let me add that the paper must be (1) typed, (2) double-spaced, (3) with normal margins and fonts. Bring the paper that you signed in class with you and hand it in separately with—not stapled to—you assignment. You will get a full 5% IF YOU FOLLOW THE DIRECTIONS. I honestly cannot make it simpler than this.

Now that the beginning-of-the-semester preliminaries are out of the way, on Tuesday we begin our study of Machiavelli. Please read the "Historical Introduction" that I handed out in class and pages 5-35 of David Wooton's Machiavelli, Selected Political Writings. As I explained in class and in the syllabus, the Wooton book is required. There may be a short quiz at the beginning of class. I will also give you a very short written assignment for Friday.

For the Week of January 23d:

For Friday, please read the excerpts from Thomas Hobbes and John Locke that I gave you on Tuesday. Next week: Machiavelli!

The reading assignment for Friday will be excerpts from modern political writers. I will hand it out in class.

For the Class of Friday, January 20th:

Map of Italy circa A.D. 1500

Machiavelli's Philosophical Anthropology

The material below is from past semesters.

THE SECOND HALF OF THE FINAL EXAM WILL BE HELD ON FRIDAY, DECEMBER 16th AT 12:00 NOON IN CARUTHERS 1021.

It will be no more than one-hour long. It will be one question focusing on the Classical Christian tradition, but may require some comparing and contrasting with the other traditions.

Because it will be proctored by MU staff, do not be late. Do not miss it completely. The staff has absolutely no discretion to extend the exam time or accept excuses for missing the exam. You gotta take it at noon on Friday.

For the Week of December 5th, the last week!:

For Friday: the first half of the final exam: a cumulative summary of the Classical tradition.

You will have one-hour to write an essay that connects the five fundamental concepts of the Classical—not Classical-Christian—tradition: ontology/cosmology, epistemology, philosophic/empirical anthropology, ethics, and politics, just like you were asked to do for the Esoteric tradition in the mid-term and the Epicurean tradition in Tuesday's one-page paper.

The second half of the final, on Friday, December 16th. It will also be one hour, one question.

For Tuesday: (1) return of the mid-terms, (2) the one-page paper, and (3) excerpts from St. Thomas on Christian ethics and politics.

The paper must, of course, be typed and submitted as a hard copy. Nothing handwritten or emailed will be accepted.
  • The only sources to be used or consulted are your notes and the assigned readings—no other primary or secondary materials—written or oral, internet, paper, or personal—may be used or consulted. Except for using these sources, the paper should be treated like a closed-book exam.
  • The absolute limit is one page. I will not read anything that is not on that one page. Use a twelve point font, preferably Times New Roman, Univers, Garamond, or CG Times, black ink, double-spaced, and the default page margins: typically one inch all around.
  • A title page is required. To the one page paper, attach a title page like the one I show you in class. Use only your Marymount Student I.D. number—NOT YOUR NAME. YOUR NAME SHOULD NOT APPEAR ANYWHERE ON THE TITLE PAGE OR ANYPLACE ELSE ON THE PAPER. I WANT COMPLETE ANONYMITY. If you violate this anonymity rule, I will not accept the paper and you will receive a zero.
  • Use the footnote format that I explain below and in class. You must have at least five footnotes.
  • Do not begin the paper with a restatement of the topic. You do not have enough space for wasted words, so get right into a thesis statement and your supporting statements.
  • The deadline is the beginning of class on Tuesday, December 6th. This means you must come to class: do not put it in the rack on my office door. Do not try to give it to me after class.
  • I will ratchet up the grading of the papers: (1) the grade on the first paper/writing sample was based upon (a) following the directions, (b) making a good faith effort, and (c) reflecting the readings in your argument; (2) the grade on the second paper will count the writing & content equally so a paper with lousy writng but good content (or vice-versa) might pass, and (3) the writing and content counted together on this third paper so a paper with more than three errors will fail regardless of content.

    • The purpose of the references, in addition to avoiding plagiarism, is to enable the reader to find the exact passage you are quoting or paraphrasing or otherwise referring to. For this paper these are the only sources for you to use or to cite: (1) the assigned readings from Lucretius, On the Nature of the Universe (cited by book and line numbers); (2) the assigned readings from Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (cited by chapter number); and (3) the assigned readings from Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on the Origin of Inequality (cited by paragraph number).

    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: (1) the FINAL MARK OF PUNCTUATION, (2) then the END QUOTATION MARK, and (3) then the FOOTNOTE. Also, as I explained to you in our individual meetings, you must use "Ibids" in this paper, too. Here are some sample footnotes:

    1Lucretius, On the Nature of the Universe, III.333.

    2Ibid. (Reference to exact same work, book, and line number as cited in the immediately preceding footnote.)

    3Ibid., IV.666. (Reference to same work but different book and line number.)

    4Hobbes, Leviathan, VI.3. (New source, never cited before in your notes.)

    5Lucretius, V.555. (Subsequent reference to a source you cited earlier. You may only use Ibid. when the citation is referring to the same source as the immediately preceding note.)

    6Rousseau, Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, par. 36. (New source, never cited before in your notes.)

    Tips for the Final Paper (same as the green sheet that I handed out in class)

    For the Week of November 28th:

    We start to wrap up the course with the Epicurean, Classical, Classical-Christian politics and ethics, just as we did with the Gnostic-Esoteric tradition. Here's an outline of the schedule:

    For Tuesday, read the short introductions to ethics and politics on the "Ethics Readings" and "Politics Readings" sites linked on the "Readings for Western Political Concepts I (Fall 2016)" page. Then read the excerpts from chapters 13, 14, 16, and 17 (you may skip the excerpts from chapters 18 and 20) of Leviathan. Use these study questions to help you work through the chapters.

    For Friday, these excerpts from Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics and Politics, which I handed out in class. Extra copies are in the rack on my office door. I will also hand out material that explains exactly how you should write the last paper on Epicurean politics. Don't miss it!

    For the Mid-Term:

    As I indicated in class, there will be three essay questions: one entirely on the Esoteric-Gnostic tradition and two that compare and contrast different aspects of the Epicurean, Classical, and Classical-Christian traditions—epistemology, philosophic anthropology, and empirical anthropology.

    The Gnostic-Esoteric question includes the readings since the first mid-term: the excerpt on "gnosis" from Jonas's book, The Gnostic Religion; the Gnostic story of The Quest for the Priceless Pearl; the Hermeticist or Esoteric classic Poemandres; and the excerpts on Gnostic and Esoteric ethics that were the assignment for last Friday's class. You may want to briefly review the Apocryphon of John: as you may recall, I used it alot to put the Gnostic ideas in context; you should use it, too. By now, given these readings, you should have a pretty good idea of how the Gnostic epistemology (and cosmology), philosophical anthropology, and ethics fit together. As I told you, I will ask you to fit them together in one of the questions on the mid-term.

    The other two questions will be similar in form to the comparison-contrast questions on the first exam. One or both may include quotes to identify by author, title, and tradition. While the focus of the questions will be on the epistemological and anthropological writings that we have been studying, it should be clear that you cannot discuss epistemology—theories of what we can know and how we can know it—without referring to ontology— what is real or "what is there to know." Your essays should include brief references to the material from the first month of the course that are necessary to explain the epistemology and the philosophical anthropology. The course is necessarily culumulative, like math and science. Each part builds on what went before.

    If you have kept up with the readings, you should be in pretty good shape. I urge you to use my commentaries on the Epistemology and Anthropology Readings sites, and the study questions that are meant to lead you through the readings. To pass, you must show me some evidence that you are familiar with details from the readings, not just the lectures or Wikipedia. I know that some of you have difficulty with the concepts we are studying, but I also urge you to try to process the information—see how the different ideas of epistemology and anthropology fit together with the prior ideas of consmology and ontology—rather than simply memorizing phrases or sentences. To get more than a passing grade, you must show me how well you understand the material, too.

    For the first class after the break, Tuesday, November 29th, we will look at Hobbes's and Rousseau's ideas of a "social contract." The final one-page paper will be due on December 2d and will ask you to put together all five philosophical conceptions of the Epicurean tradition.

    For the Week of November 14th:

    Two famous readings from the Esoteric tradition: In Quest of the Priceless Pearl (or somtimes simply, The Pearl) and the more challenging Hermetic or Hermeticist tract, Poemandres. In both, look for evidence of the concepts of man: empirical anthropology and philosophic anthropology. Use the questions on the Anthropology Readings page to help.

    On Friday, some readings on Gnostic ethics: please read the handout of excerpts about Gnostic ethics by Jonas, Cohn, Knox, and Mahe. See the Ethics Readings page for a couple of study questions. Extra copies are in the rack on my office door.

    Mid-term, next Tuesday, the 22d.

    For the Week of November 7th:

    For Friday, please read the excerpts from St. Augustine on empirical and philosophical anthropology. Again, there are study questions to take you through the readings on the "Anthropology Readings" page at #3, Classical-Christian anthropology. If you did not pick up the handout, you may print one out from the link—"City of God excerpts on anthropology"—at #3 of the "Anthropology Readings" page. How does St. Augustine's view differ from Plato's and Aristotle's.

    For Tuesday, please read the excerpts from Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, Book I: the handout I gave you on Friday. Look for clues or remarks that indicate Aristotle's view of how people behave (empirical anthropology). Importantly, also look for evidence of Aristotle's philosophical anthropology, his understanding of the essential nature of man—man's place in the cosmos. In Aristotle, and in many philosophers, the philosophical anthropology is tied to his understanding of man's essential purpose, function, and goal, often characterized as "happiness"; in Greek, eudaimonia. Hobbes discusses this same thing using the word "felicity" rather than "happiness" in the last few paragraphs of chapter 6 of Leviathan, part of the last Hobbes handout that I gave you. Compare Hobbes's and Aristotle's views.

    As always, all of these readings, along with study questions and commentary, are available on the "Anthropology Readings" link of my web page. Use the comments on the Anthropology and Epistemology Readings pages. We will also be discussing the close tie between anthropology and ethics, so use the Ethics Readings page as well.

    For Halloween Week:

    For Friday, one short new reading assignment from Plato's Republic: Books II.358c-362d and VI.489d-497a. This is linked on the Anthropology Readings page under "Classical anthropology," 2.a. Use the questions in that paragraph as a study guide.

    We will also go over the last papers in class in some detail.

    Finally, I am moving the mid-term from Friday, November 11th, to Tuesday, November 22d. Make your travel plans accordingly.

    Readings from Lucretius, Hobbes, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau for Tuesday. Please go to the "Anthropology Readings" page (just below the "Epistemology Readings" link that we have been using the past three weeks) and read (1) the introductory paragraphs on the top of the page and (2) the texts from Lucretius, Hobbes, and Rousseau set out in the first section on "Epicurean Anthropology." The passages from Lucretius add up to only a few pages. Chapter 13 of Hobbes's Leviathan is one of the most famous pieces of English literature. Chapter 6 was included in the handout a couple of weeks ago of Hobbes's account of epistemology; you only need to review the very important last few paragraphs where Hobbes defines "felicity," a synonym for "happiness." Happiness is an important concept in this discussion. The paragraphs from Rousseau have been very influential in contemporary (recent) theories of human nature. Important stuff all.

    Next mid-term is scheduled for November 11th. I try to stick to the syllabus schedule, but if we cannot cover the necessary material by that time, I will move the exam back. Stay tuned.

    For the Week of October 24th:

    As nnounced in class, please read the handout of excerpts from the writings of St. Augustine. Use these study questions to help you through the excerpts.

    First, let me say that Friday's class was one of the best this semester. Many of you participated, whether to ask or to answer questions, and that was great! Keep it up. This is difficult stuff and is also new to most of you. You learn it best by getting involved in the discussion, not by sitting quietly and simply trying to absorb it.

    Second, do not be upset if you had difficulty understanding the Aristotle excerpt for the paper. I require you to use the material that I assign for the day that the paper is due. I cannot expect you to understand the new material as well as the material that we have already discussed in class, but if I don't require you to use the assigned material in the paper, most of you will not read the assigned material and focus only on the paper. I do not base much of your grade on the paper's content regarding the newly assigned material. Just show effort in trying to understand the material. As per the syllabus, papers will be returned in two weeks.

    Finally, assignments for the week: for Tuesday, please read the handout on Gnostic knowledge or gnosis that I handed out to you. Specifically what is the content of gnosis? How is it acquired? See the last batch of these study questions to help you through the excerpt. Use the first batches of questions for Friday's excerpts from St. Augustine.

    For Friday, I will have a handout of excerpts from St. Augustine for you.

    For the Week of October 17th:

    For Friday: the One-page Paper is Due. For the paper, please read Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, Book Six, chapters 6 and 7, which I handed out in class and which is also linked here. I am also assigning the "Divided Line Graphic," which is linked on the Epistemology Readings page and which I showed on the screen in class Tuesday, which you may use to help you with the terminology only: do not quote or cite it!

    The paper must compare and contrast Aristotle's conception of "intuitive reason," which Aristotle describes in chapter 6 of Book Six, and his conception of "wisdom"—"philosophic wisdom"—which he discusses in chapter 7 with Plato's conceptions of "reason" and "understanding," which Plato discusses in his account of the "divided line." These are the only two sources that you may cite, though you may also use the "Divided Line Graphic" to help to clarify the key terms of Plato's account. Your translation of Plato is the Jowett translation; Jowett's names for what can be known and for the different intellectual capabilities are listed under his name on the chart. YOU SHOULD USE THE JOWETT WORDS IN YOUR PAPER.

    As in the first paper, two full paragraphs—one on Plato and one on Aristotle—with a strong introductory statement or concluding statement will be enough. Note, you must use "Ibid." properly in your notes for this paper.

    Use the study questions on the readings by Plato and Aristotle to guide our class discussion and to guide your study of the readings for the paper. The study questions are available, as always, on the "Epistemology Readings" page under the "Readings for Western Political Concepts I (Fall 2016)" link.

    Grading Scale for Essays

    Outlines of Model Answers for First Exam

    Please read all of the following material on the papers and follow directions.

    Topic for One-Page Paper: compare and contrast Aristotle's conception of "intuitive reason," which Aristotle describes in chapter 6 of Book Six, and his conception of "wisdom"—"philosophic wisdom"—which he discusses in chapter 7 with Plato's conceptions of "reason" and "understanding," which he discusses in his account of the "divided line." Are they, despite each author's different terms, the same thing(s)? If not, how are they different?

    Rules for One-Page Papers

    The question will be a comparison of Plato's epistemology to Aristotle's. The Epicurean materials will not be relevant.

    Rules/Guidelines for One-Page Papers.

    1. The paper must, of course, be typed and submitted as a hard copy. Nothing handwritten or emailed will be accepted.
    2. The only sources to be used are the assigned readings—no other primary or secondary materials—written or oral, internet, paper, or personal—may be used or consulted. This is essentially a closed-book exam.
    3. The absolute limit is one page. I will not read anything that is not on that one page. Use a twelve point font, preferably Times New Roman, Univers, Garamond, or CG Times, black ink, double-spaced, and the default page margins: typically one inch all around.
    4. A title page is required. To the one page paper, attach a title page like the one I show you in class. Use only your Marymount Student I.D. number—NOT YOUR NAME. YOUR NAME SHOULD NOT APPEAR ANYWHERE ON THE TITLE PAGE OR ANYPLACE ELSE ON THE PAPER. I WANT COMPLETE ANONYMITY. If you violate this anonymity rule, I will not accept the paper and you will receive a zero.
    5. Use the footnote format that I explain below and in class. You must have at least five footnotes.
    6. Do not begin the paper with a restatement of the topic. You do not have enough space for wasted words, so get right into a thesis statement and your supporting statements.
    7. The deadline is the beginning of class on Friday, October 21st. This means you must come to class: do not put it in the rack on my office door. Do not try to give it to me after class.
    8. I will ratchet up the grading of the papers: (1) the grade on the first paper/writing sample was based upon (a) following the directions, (b) making a good faith effort, and (c) reflecting the readings in your argument; (2) the grade on this second paper will count the writing & content equally so a paper with lousy writng but good content (or vice-versa) might pass, and (3) the writing and content counted together on the third paper so a paper with more than three errors will fail regardless of content.

    The purpose of the references, in addition to avoiding plagiarism, is to enable the reader to find the exact passage you are quoting or paraphrasing or otherwise referring to. For this paper there are only two possible sources for you to cite: (1) The passages from Plato's Republic are cited by Stephanus numbers only. (2) Passages from Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics are cited by 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: (1) the FINAL MARK OF PUNCTUATION, (2) then the END QUOTATION MARK, and (3) then the FOOTNOTE. Also, as I explained to you in our individual meetings, you must use "Ibids" in this paper, too. Here are sample footnotes for the Plato and Aristotle:

    1Plato, Republic, 507(a).

    2Ibid. (Reference to exact same work and page as previously cited.)

    3Ibid., 509(a). (Reference to same work but different page number.)

    4Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, VI.3. (New source, never cited before in your notes.)

    5Plato, 510(a). (Subsequent reference to a source you cited earlier. You may only use Ibid. when the citation is referring to the same source as the immediately preceding note.)

    6Aristotle, VI.7. (Another subsequent to a source you cited earlier.)

    For Tuesday, please read these excerpts on Aristotle's four intellectual virtues of "scientific knowledge" (episteme), "art" or "craftsmanship" (techne), "practical wisdom" or "prudence" (phronesis), and political wisdom (politike): chapters 3, 4, 5, & 8 of Book Six of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics. We will continue to discuss Plato's divided line and cave parable in the Republic on Tuesday.

    We will also discuss the one-page paper due Friday. You will be asked to compare an aspect of Plato's epistemology in the Republic with the aspect of Aristotle's epistemology that will be assigned for Friday. I will give you the specific questiion here and in class on Tuesday. At this point, study Plato's argument closely; you will have to write one paragraph about it for the paper.

    For the Class of October 14th:

    We will go over the exams first. Then we will turn to Classical epistemology. Please read the handout of Plato's "divided line" and "parable of the cave." There are study questions on this material on the "Epistemology Readings" page. The assignment for Tuesday the 18th is the excerpt from Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, Book VI, on the intellectual virtues, also linked with study questions on the "Epistemology Readings" page.

    I posted Wednesday and Friday times next week for appointments to go over your papers. By my calculation, I posted enough times to accommodate all of the students who have not yet me with me. Please sign up for a time by Friday or lose 2% of your semester grade. I am planning to assign the paper for Tuesday, October 18th. The topic is a comparison-contrast of Epicurean and Classical epistemology.

    For the Week of October 3d:

    For Friday, please read chapters 1-5 of Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan. There are study questions on the "Epistemology Readings" page under the "Readings for Western Political Concepts I (Fall 2016)" link. As you read Hobbes, note the similarities (and differences) between Hobbes's epistemology and Lucretius's.

    The eye and the mind.

    It looked like you all survived the examination. I will grade them and hand them back in two weeks—October 14th—as promised in the syllabus.

    We will begin on Tuesday to study the concept of epistemology, the study of "knowledge"—what we can know and how we know things. Two readings: (1) please review the article on "Myth and Reality" by the Frankforts on the ancient methods of knowing the world and (2) please read Lucretius, On the Nature of the Universe, IV.26-614, 722-908; II.788-864 (Book IV, lines 26-614, 722-908; Book II, lines 788-864). As with the earlier material on cosmology and ontology, go to the "Readings for Western Political Concepts I (Fall 2016)" link directly below this one, and then click on "Epistemology Readings" for the readings assignments and study questions.

    A sign-up sheet is on my office door for Tuesday and Friday appointments this week to go over your papers. Appointments will continue into next week as well. Let me know immediately if you have class or other obligations that prevent you from meeting with me at the times on the sign-up sheet, and I will make special arrangements with you. Please sign up as soon as you can. Next paper is scheduled for Friday, October 14th.

    For the Week of September 26th:

    Friday is the mid-term. You have an excellent chance here to catch up on all of the readings assigned thus far in the semester. Here are some basics:

    1. There will be three essay questions, each asking for an answer of about two-to-three bluebook pages (about 250 words). The material that we have been studying will be sliced into narrow, focused questions on ontology/cosmology, mostly comparing and contrasting the different writers on issues that they have commonly addressed (the nature of the gods or God, the relation of the divine to the universe, the relation of God or the gods to individuals, the creation of the universe (cosmogony).
    2. From the "Introduction to Political Theory" essay, you should have a clear idea of the four philosophical traditions that we will be studying throughout the semester. We began the semester with two excerpts (the Eliade and Frankfort essays) about the ancient, pre-philosophic understanding of the world, and the first mid-term will include them, but the ancients do not constitute one of the four traditions that are identified in the "Introduction to Political Theory" essay.
    3. From the "Introduction to Political Theory" essay, you should have a pretty good idea of the five fundamental philosophical conceptions that we will be studying, but you should have a very good understanding of the conceptions of ontology/cosmology that we have been studying for the past three weeks.
    4. You should be able to identify (and spell correctly) the authors and titles of the works that have been assigned. The exam will include identification questions that are worth a few bonus points—not as much as the essays, but worth enough to give you reason to learn the authors and titles of the works.

    An example of an identification question:

    Identify the following quotation by author, title of the work in which it appears, and the philosophical tradition to which it belongs:

    Nothing is ever created by divine power out of nothing.

    Author:

    Title:

    Tradition:

    And the answers, of course, are Lucretius, On the Nature of the Universe, and Epicureanism.

    When you come to class, place all of your belongings—including all cell phones and other electronic devices—at the front of the room. Turn all cell phones and other devices off so that they do not make noise or ring while the exam is taking place. YOU MAY NOT HAVE ANY ELECTRONIC DEVICE OR ANY PAPER OTHER THAN THE EXAM AND BLUE BOOK WITH YOU WHEN YOU TAKE THE EXAM.

    Please bring a couple of black or blue ink pens. You must use a pen; no pencils. I will bring some extras.

    For Tuesday, please read the handout by Hans Jonas on the Gnostic and Classical conceptions of the cosmos. It is an excellent review for Friday's exam.

    For the Week of September 19th:

    For Friday, please read the handout "The Apocryphon of John," which also happens to be on the "Cosmology-Ontology Readings" page under paragraph #5. There is no separately-linked list of study questions for the Apocryphon, but there are many study questions in paragraph #5 on the "Readings" page.

    First mid-term essay exam is next Friday, September 30th. Try to start processing the information that you have read and heard thus far. Essays require you to explain, compare, and evaluate what you have read.

    There is a sign-up sheet for discussions of your papers on my office door, Ireton, G107. The sheet lists two days so far: this Friday and next Tuesday. We will not have appointments the day of the exam, but the appointments will resume on Tuesday the 4th.

    For Tuesday, please read the excerpts from St. Augustine that are linked on the "Cosmology-Ontology Readings" page under #4. Study questions are provided there as well. The "Cosmology-Ontology Readings" page is on the "Readings for Western Political Concepts I (Fall 2016)" link.

    For the Week of September 12th:

    For Friday, (1) please read the material by Aristotle on the "four causes," which is the first excerpt in the handout that I gave you last Friday for this week, and (2) hand in your one-page paper.

    The study questions that you have been using for the Stoic writers also include a few questions on Aristotle's four causes. Aristotle, the three Stoics, and Lucretius should all be used and cited in your paper: Aristotle and Lucretius must be used! As I mentioned in class, your answer/paper should be divided into two main paragraphs of four or five sentences each and either an introductory paragraph or a concluding paragraph, not both. Make sure your paper shows me that you understand the difference between cosmology and ontology: you should focus on one or the other.

    Please, please, read all of the following material on the papers and follow directions. This is more of a writing sample than a test of your knowledge of the thought of Lucretius, Aristotle, and the Stoics.

    Rules for One-Page Papers

    The question to be addressed in the paper is "How does the Epicurean cosmology (or ontology) differ significantly from Classical cosmology (or ontology)?"

    Rules/Guidelines for One-Page Papers.

    1. The paper must, of course, be typed and submitted as a hard copy. Nothing handwritten or emailed will be accepted.
    2. The only sources to be used are the assigned readings—no other primary or secondary materials—written or oral, internet, paper, or personal—may be used or consulted. This is essentially a closed-book exam.
    3. The absolute limit is one page. I will not read anything that is not on that one page. Use a twelve point font, preferably Times New Roman, Univers, Garamond, or CG Times, black ink, double-spaced, and the default page margins: typically one inch all around.
    4. A title page is required. To the one page paper, attach a title page like the one I show you in class. Use only your Marymount Student I.D. number—NOT YOUR NAME. YOUR NAME SHOULD NOT APPEAR ANYWHERE ON THE TITLE PAGE OR ANYPLACE ELSE ON THE PAPER. I WANT COMPLETE ANONYMITY. If you violate this anonymity rule, I will not accept the paper and you will receive a zero.
    5. Use the footnote format that I explain below and in class.
    6. Do not begin the paper with a restatement of the topic. You do not have enough space for wasted words, so get right into a thesis statement and your supporting statements.
    7. The deadline is the beginning of class on Friday, September 16th. This means you must come to class: do not put it in the rack on my office door. Do not try to give it to me after class.
    8. I will ratchet up the grading of the papers: (1) the grade on this first paper/writing sample is based upon (a) following the directions, (b) making a good faith effort, and (c) reflecting the readings in your argument; (2) the grade on the second paper will count the writing & content equally so a paper with lousy writng but good content (or vice-versa) will pass, and (3) the writing and content counted together on the third paper so a paper with more than three errors will fail regardless of content.

    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 Eliade and the Frankforts are cited by page number. (3) Passages from Aristotle, Cicero, Epictetus, or Marcus Aurelius are to book and part/chapter/section number. Book numbers in Roman numerals; chapter numbers in Arabic numerals in both these cases, just like in the linked text.

    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 the Frankforts, Eliade, Lucretius, Aristotle, Cicero, and Epictetus:

    1Henri and H.A. Frankfort, "Myth and Reality," in Before Philosophy, 18. (Note: end all footnotes with a period.)

    2Mircea Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane, 8.

    3Lucretius, On the Nature of the Universe, I.350.

    4Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods, VII.6.

    5Ibid. (A reference to the exact same source—author, title, the location in the text—in the very next footnote. "Ibid." refers back to the source in the previous footnote.)

    6Lucretius, III.135. (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.)

    7Epictetus, Discourses, V.13. (new source)

    8Aristotle, Physics, II.3. (new source)

    9Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, iv.4. (new source)

    I hope this stuff is starting to make some sense to you. I think all of us have thought about and talked about this subject—the nature of the world around us, the nature of reality. Perhaps our religions have given us ready answers to these questions; that is certainly where my first understanding came from. What we are doing here is studying alternative conceptions of cosmology and reality. Do not just try to memorize the positions of the different writers. Try to process, to digest, their arguments so that their overall logic makes sense to you. I look for evidence of this processing of information in your papers and exams, and in your class responses.

    For Tuesday, please read the excerpts by Cicero, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius in the handout that I gave you. Do not read Aristotle for Tuesday; the Aristotle excerpt on the four causes is the assignment for Friday. Study questions are linked on the "Cosmology-Ontology Readings" link on the "Readings for Western Political Concepts I (Fall 2016)" link, which is directly below, in §3.

    We will begin class by concluding the discussion of Lucretius that we began last Friday. Bring your books.

    We will also discuss the details for the first paper, due Friday. The question to be addressed in the paper is "How does the Epicurean cosmology (or ontology) differ significantly from Classical cosmology (or ontology)?" This is the kind of question you might be asked on the first mid-term exam. The difference between a paper and an exam is that you must document the basis of your answer in a paper; you do not have to do that in an exam.

    You answer must include references to Lucretius, to the Stoics writers that we are reading for Tuesday, and to Aristotle's four causes. The papers will always include references to the material that is assigned for the class at which the papers are due. Otherwise, the assigned readings do not get done.

    See you Tuesday!

    For the Week of September 5th:

    Assignment for Friday is several passages from Lucretius, On the Nature of the Universe, which are spelled out in detail on the "Cosmology-Ontology Readings" link on the "Readings for Western Political Concepts I (Fall 2016)" link, which is directly below this one. Read the passages set out in §(Section)2.a and use the study questions linked in §2.a. YOU WILL NEED A COPY OF THE ASSIGNED TEXT: THESE PASSAGES ARE NOT AVAILABLE IN THE SAME FORM ON THE INTERNET. §2.a also provides some background info and guidance.

    We can also discuss further questions form the Frankforts and Eliade readings. Guidance and study questions are provided in §1.

    For Tuesday, please read (1) the handouts by Mircea Eliade and Henri and H.A. Frankfort and (2) the introductory materials on the Eliade and Frankfort material located on the link entitled "Readings for Western Political Concepts I (Fall 2016)," located directly below the link for the assignment page that you are now reading. Once you click on the "Readings for Western Political Concepts I (Fall 2016)" link, click on the "Cosmology-Ontology Readings" link on that page.

    We will also review the section on the philosophical traditions in the "Introduction" that you read for last Friday. You will note that the Eliade and Frankfort materials do not fit in any of the traditions for the simple reason that they describe ancient thinking before philosophy developed.

    There are study questions for the Eliade and Frankfort readings on the "Cosmology-Ontology Readings" link that we will use for class discussion and maybe for a quiz. Again, click on "Readings for Western Political Concepts I (Fall 2016)" directly below the link you are now reading from, then click on "Cosmology-Ontology Readings." These links will be the main source of readings and study questions for the remainder of the course.

    Rules for One-Page Papers

    The topic is a demonstration of how the Classical conception of politics depends upon the Classical conceptions of ontology, epistemology, anthropology, and ethics.

    Question: What kind of reality does St. Augustine add to Epicurean and to Classical ontology, and what method or means of knowing that reality does he add to Epicurean epistemology and Classical epistemology?

    Rules/Guidelines for One-Page Papers.

    1. The paper must, of course, be typed and submitted as a hard copy. Nothing handwritten or emailed will be accepted.
    2. The only sources to be used are the assigned readings—no other primary or secondary materials—written or oral, internet, paper, or personal—may be used or consulted. This is essentially a closed-book exam.
    3. The absolute limit is one page—about 250 words. I will not read anything that is not on that one page. Use an eleven or twelve point font, preferably Times New Roman, Univers, Garamond, Calibri, or CG Times, black ink, double-spaced, and the default page margins: typically one inch all around.
    4. The entire paper must fit on one sheet of paper, like the one I handed out in class: title page on one side, your text and footnotes on the other. Use only your Marymount Student I.D. number—NOT YOUR NAME. YOUR NAME SHOULD NOT APPEAR ANYWHERE ON THE TITLE PAGE OR ANYPLACE ELSE ON THE PAPER. I WANT COMPLETE ANONYMITY. If you violate this anonymity rule, I will not accept the paper and you will receive a zero.
    5. Use the footnote format that I explain below and in class. You need at least five footnotes for this paper!
    6. Do not begin the paper with a restatement of the topic. You do not have enough space for wasted words, so get right into a thesis statement and your supporting statements.
    7. The deadline is the beginning of class on Tuesday, September 19th. This means you must come to class: do not put it in the rack on my office door. Do not try to give it to me after class. You must come to class and stay until class is over to get any credit for the paper.
    8. I will ratchet up the grading of the papers: (1) the grade on the first paper/writing sample was based upon (a) following these directions, (b) making a good faith effort, and (c) reflecting the readings in your argument; (2) the grade on this second paper will count the writing & content equally so a paper with lousy writng but good content or vice-versa will (barely) pass; and (3) the writing and content count together on the third paper so a paper with more than three errors will fail regardless of content.

    The purpose of the references is to enable me or any reader 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 are by chapter number. (3) Passages from Plato are cited by Stephanus numbers. (4) Passages from Aristotle and St. Augustine are to book and part/chapter/section number. Book numbers in Roman numerals; chapter numbers in Arabic numerals in all these cases, just like in the linked text.

    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 Lucretius, Hobbes, Plato, Aristotle, and St. Augustine. Always end your footnote with a period. You may also use the model footnotes on the handout that I gave you in class. You must use "ibid." where appropriate in this paper.

    1Lucretius, On the Nature of the Universe, I.350.

    2Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, ch. 2. (Cite Hobbes's work by chapter.)

    3Plato, Republic, 506(b). (Cite Plato's work by Stephanus numbers, the numbers in bold face in the text that precede what you are quoting or paraphrasing.)

    4Leviathan, ch. 3. (Hobbes again: same work, different chapter.)

    5Ibid. (A reference to the exact same source—author, title, the location in the text—in the very next footnote. "Ibid." refers back to the source in the previous footnote.)

    6Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, VI.3 (We will cite Aristotle's work by book number in Roman numerals and chapter/part number in Arabic numerals.)

    7St. Augustine, On Free Choice of the Will, I.6.42. (Cite this work by St. Augustine by book numer, chapter number, and section number.)

    8St. Augustine, City of God, VII.3. (A new source by a previously cited author. New title must be cited. Cite City of God by book and chapter number.)

    9Ibid., VII.4. (A reference to the City of God immediately following a reference to the same work, but this reference is to another part of that work.)

    The other punctuation to be mastered is the introduction of quotes. If you introduce them using the word "that" (what Turabian calls run-in quotes), 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 societies is the history of class struggles." Here, a comma follows the verb "said," and the first word of the sentence is capitalized. The content of the quotes must be absolutely perfect; proofread the quotes several times to make sure.

    One further note: do not use the noun "human" as a synonym for "man" unless you are specifically distinguishing between a human trait (note the adjective here) and a divine or animal trait. The noun "human" implies this distinction. In this discipline, the noun "man" is the standard reference in works of political theory and philosophy. Also, use the word "divine" as an adjective only: it is not a synonym for "God or "a god."

    For Friday, Septmber 2, please read the handout that I gave you entitled "An Introduction to Political Theory and Political Philosophy." We will go over this material in class and also some information for the first paper.

    The material below is from past semesters of POL 210 and 211.

    Nature Don't Exist!

    For the Final:

    The course materials for the semester break down into three units:

    1. the intial study of the liberal/Epicurean social contract theories of Locke and Hobbes, with references to Rousseau, Aristotle, and Aquinas
    2. the study of political ideologies—approaches and examples
    3. the study Walter Lippmann's Public Philosophy, with references to Ortega, Bernays, and Lasch

    There may be references on this essay exam to any or all of the authors and writings that we studied this semester, but the final will focus primarily on the most recent, third part of the course—Lippmann and the argument that he spells out in The Public Philosophy. In fact, each of the questions may be rooted in Lippmann's two-part argument because he discusses at some length the philosophy of John Locke (the father of liberal democracy) and political ideologies (the counter-revolutionaries, the adversaries of liberal democracy, and the confusion of the two realms). Thus, Lippmann's argument rests on your understanding of the first two parts of the course: Locke and liberalism, and political ideologies.

    Recall that Lippmann's book-length argument is presented in two parts: part ("Book") one sets out the problem that Lippmann says is facing the Western world; part ("Book") two is Lippmann's proposed solution. You should understand how the two parts of the argument fit together. What is the root cause of the great problem? What role do ideologies play in the problem? What can be done to solve the problem? What obstacles stand in the way of the solution? (You must be familiar with the last two chapters of the book to know this.) And, of course, what exactly is "the public philosophy" that Lippmann defends?

    The exam will be a two-hour essay exam with three or four questions. As I indicated in class, one question will focus on whether Christopher Lasch's argument in the last handout (The Revolt of the Elites) disagrees with the Lippmann's (and Ortega's and Bernays's) account of the problem facing liberal democracies. At least one question will tie Lippmann's analysis of political ideologies to the material on ideologies that we studied. At least one question will tie Lippmann to the social contract theorists. Lippmann's argument makes everything that we studied this semester relevant to his analysis. If you have read all of the assigned material, it should not be too difficult.

    Check your emails Friday morning for confirmation of the location of the exam. As always, bring blue or black ink pens and your ID#. No phones. No bathroom breaks. No papers besides the bluebooks and the exam questions that I hand out.

    For the Week of April 25th:

    For Tuesday, please read the following parts of chapters 9 and 10 (IX and X): Chapter 9, parts 1, 3-6; Chapter 10, parts 1 & 2. The assignment for Friday, which should also be reflected in your final paper, is Chapter 10, parts 4-6, and all of Chapter 11. (You should also read the handout from Christopher Lasch's Revolt of the Elites for Friday—it is the basis for a final exam question—but you should not use it in the paper. Don't read it until you finish your paper.

    For the one-page paper due Friday, discuss the following question: "In Lippmann's opinion, is it possible to develop a working doctrine of the good society under modern conditions?" If your (Lippmann's) answer is yes, explain how he argues that this can be done. If your (Lippmann's) answer is no, explain his reasons for saying it cannot be done. Writing this paper should be good preparation for the final exam, too.

    Rules/Guidelines for One-Page Papers. You must follow directions if you wish to get a passing grade on the paper.

    1. The paper must, of course, be typed and submitted as a hard copy. Nothing handwritten or emailed (see below) will be accepted.
    2. The only sources to be used are the assigned readings—no other primary or secondary materials—written or oral, internet, paper, or personal—may be used or consulted. This is essentially a closed-book exam.
    3. The absolute limit is one page. I will not read anything that is not on that one page. Use a twelve point font, preferably Times New Roman, Univers, Garamond, or CG Times, black ink, double-spaced, and the default page margins: typically one inch all around.
    4. A title page is required. To the one-page paper, attach a title page like this one. Use only your Marymount Student I.D. number—NOT YOUR NAME. YOUR NAME SHOULD NOT APPEAR ANYWHERE ON THE TITLE PAGE OR ANYPLACE ELSE ON THE PAPER. I WANT COMPLETE ANONYMITY. If you violate this anonymity rule, I will not accept the paper and you will receive a zero.
    5. Use the footnote format that I explain below and in class.
    6. Do not begin the paper with a restatement of the topic. You do not have enough space for wasted words, so get right into a thesis statement and your supporting statements. This paper should be divided into at least two paragraphs.
    7. The deadline is the beginning of class on Friday, April 29th. This means you must come to class and stay for the whole class: do not put it in the rack on my office door. Do not try to give it to me after class. If you cannot make it to class, you must email a copy of the paper to me by 2:00am Friday and get me a hard copy by Tuesday the 9th at the latest. I will not read the emailed copy, but will check it against the hard copy after I correct the hard copy. The absence will be excused or unexcused, as appropriate under the rules of the syllabus.
    8. I ratchet up the grading of the papers: (1) a good-faith, on-time submission that shows effort will receive the full five points for the first paper, (2) 50-50 writing-content on the second ten-point paper so a paper with lousy writing but good content (or vice-versa) will pass, and (3)the writing and content counted together on the final ten-point paper so a paper with more than three errors will fail regardless of content.

    At least five references/footnotes from different pages of the Lippmann text are required and at least four of them must come from pages in the second half of the book, where Lippmann discusses the question you are asked to answer in the paper. Your footnotes will demonstrate to me how much of the text you have read and used. You must use "Ibid." properly in the your notes.

    For this paper all or most of your citations will be to the Lippmann text. If you wish to cite other materials that we have read in the course, cite them in the manner explained in the directions I provided for previous papers. The Lippmann text is also a good model for footnote use generally. Lippmann's text cites and uses footnotes in exactly the way that I want you to cite them. Imitate him!

    Examples:

    1Walter Lippmann, The Public Philosophy, 184.

    2Ibid., 25. [This is a reference to Lippmann's book, but to a different page from the last citation. Do not give all of the information you did in the first citation to Lippmann. Use Ibid. for that.]

    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. Each footnote itself is punctuated with a final period. Use Ibid. as appropriate. Refer back to the Lippmann essay. The method of notation in that essay is very similar to the Chicago Style method that I am asking you to use. It isn't difficult.

    The purpose of the references is to enable me to find the exact passage you are quoting or paraphrasing or otherwise referring to. Titles of works are italicized; titles of articles, essays, and chapters are placed in quotes.

    The other punctuation to be mastered is the introduction of quotes. If you introduce them using the word "that" (what Turabian calls run-in quotes), 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!

    One further note: do not use the noun "human" as a synonym for "man" unless you are specifically distinguishing between a human trait (note the adjective here) and a divine or animal trait. The noun "human" implies this distinction. In this discipline, the noun "man" is the standard reference in works of political theory and philosophy.

    Trump and the Elites. Compare to Lasch's argument.

    Trump and Crowds

    For the Week of April 18th:

    For Friday, let's forget the sleepy Tuesday afternoon class and discuss chapter eight of The Public Philosophy, "The Eclipse of the Public Philosophy." This in particular is a carry-over from Lippmann's comments in chapter five, section 4, where he says that "the other development which has acted to enfeeble the executive power is the growing incapacity of the large majority of the democratic peoples to believe in intangible realities," and in chapter six, section two "A Prognosis." Some study questions for chapter eight:
    1. What does Lippmann mean by "the public philosophy"? What is a public philosophy?
    2. What created the "great vacuum" that Lippmann discusses in the section two?
    3. Is Lippmann opposed to the right of individuals to have their own private opinions?
    4. What are the "traditions of civility" to which Lippmann repeatedly refers? (Pay close attention to the excerpt from Ernest Barker's book on pages 97-98.)
    5. Why does Lippmann call the privatization of beliefs a "subtle transformation" of the original status of the public philosophy?
    6. What are the "first and last things" that are part of the public philosophy?
    7. What is the radical change in the conception of freedom brought about by the privatization of belief?
    8. Does Lippmann believe that citizens should be indoctrinated with the public philosophy and punished for failures to conform to it?
    9. What is the relation of natural law to the public philosophy? to the traditions of civility?
    10. Why is it no longer the dominant way of viewing political and public behavior, according to Lippmann?
    11. Why is it important to liberal democracies?
    12. What is the origin of the notion of "universal laws of rational order"?
    13. Why are such laws useful for large states with diverse populations? Are they essential, or just useful, according to Lippmann?
    14. Why is such an order of law or norms "natural"? What does the term "natural" convey here?
    15. Why do modern men have the impulse to "escape from freedom"? Why is freedom intolerable to many? How does freedom in the modern world contribute to public disorder, according to Lippmann?
    16. What does the "lonely crowd," the lonely and anxious men of today need and long for, according to Lippmann?

    Final paper is due next Friday (April 29th). I will discuss the topic in class.

    For Tuesday, please read chapter 7, thus completing Book One of The Public Philosophy. Why do you think the first seven chapters are designated "Book One," while the remainder of the book is "Book Two"? What is Lippmann's main point in the first seven chapters? What is his thesis? What is "the obscure revolution"? the democratic "malady"? the "derangement of powers"? the "totalitarian counterrevolution"? Who are the "adversaries" of liberal democracy" What is the mood of the book so far? How do Ortega and Bernays tie in here?

    For the Week of April 11th:

    Please read chapters 4, 5, and 6 of Lippmann's text for Friday (chapters 4 and 6 are very short, and chapter 5 describes in more detail the powers that Lippmann says were deranged in the twentieth century.) We will also complete the discussions of Ortega and Bernays.

    For Tuesday, please read the excerpts by Ortega y Gasset and Edward Bernays in the handout. Extra copies are in the rack on my office door. Try to relate the new material with Lippmann's argument in the first three chapters.

    I will hand the exams back on Friday.

    In Jose Ortega y Gasset's classic 1932 work, The Revolt of the Masses, the first couple of chapters set the stage for his argument. What are Ortega's main points? Why are the masses, as Ortega describes them, a problem for liberal democracy? Are they a problem for monarchy? Are Ortega's views consistent with Lippmann's?

      Here are a few study questions to help you through the Ortega reading:
    1. (Chapter One) What, according to Ortega, is the most important fact for the public life of Europe in 1930?
    2. What is Ortega's concept of "agglomeration" or "plenitude"?
    3. What are the two necessary components of society?
    4. What is the "conversion of quantity into quality"?
    5. Who is the "mass man"?
    6. Who is the "select man"? (Which one are you?)
    7. What is the relation of Ortega's essential social divisions to social classes?
    8. What is Ortega's "old democracy" as contrasted to "hyperdemocracy"?
    9. What is "the evil" of hyperdemocracy?
    10. (Chapter Two) What precedent does Ortega point to for the present crisis?
    11. What is Ortega's "radically aristocratic interpretation of history"? (Remember Hume? Mill?)
    12. What is the difference between Ortega's "aristocracy" and "Society" or "High Society" or the "titled aristocracy"?
    13. What two aspects of Ortega's "fact of our times" does he begin to examine?
    14. What does he mean by the "rise of the level of history"?
    15. Did Europe become "americanized"?

    Ortega's argument is a powerful one, one not often heard today. But Ortega may not be correct. The world Ortega describes may no longer exist. Do you think it does? Can you see points of agreement and disagreement in Ortega's argument with Lippmann's? Does it bear a resemblance to Jefferson's "natural aristocracy"? There is a lot to chew on here.

    How does Bernays's discussion in the first chapter compare to Lippmann's argument in chapters one-to-three?

    For the Week of April 4th:

    Please read chapters 2 and 3 for Friday. Each chapter of the book has subtitles, and a good way to study the material is to ask yourself what each chapter title and subtitle means as you work your way through the chapters. For example, what is the "obscure revolution" that Lippmann discusses in chapter one? Why did Lippmann write the book? What happened in 1917 that makes it so significant in Lippmann's view? And so on. These make good quiz questions, too.

    Tests will be returned next week. They are in a queue behind two other exams that I must grade.

    We begin the last third of the semester with a perennial favorite of students in this course: Walter Lippmann's The Public Philosophy, the Transaction Books (Transaction Publishers) edition. Please read Paul Roazen's "Introduction" and Chapter One, "The Obscure Revolution," for Tuesday.

    Handwriting notes versus typing notes on laptop

    Writing Skills

    For the Week of March 28th:

    For the Mid-term Exam on Friday:

    First, we will again be in the Library Instruction Room. Those who wish to type the exam may do so; those who wish to use a bluebook may do so. I do not consider writing errors—spelling, punctuation, grammar—when I grade exams. If you can type well and your hand-writing is hard to read, I suggest typing, but it is your choice. Bring your ID # (and a couple of pens if you plan to use a bluebook).

    Second, the exam will be an essay exam, as usual.

    Third, the exam will cover all of the material that we have read since the last exam AND will ask you to apply one of the approaches that we studied to either John Locke's or Thomas Hobbes's writings, which we studied during the first month of class:

    There. You now have a good idea of the three questions that will be on the exam and what to study to prepare for the exam.

    For Tuesday, please read the handout on "The Ideology of Fascism" by A. James Gregor. We will review a couple of the other videos from last time. You should use the Gregor analysis of Fascism to interpret the material assigned last time on Italian Fascism and the speeches by Mussolini and Hitler. ("The Ideology of Fascism" originally appeared in the collection The Transformation of a Continent (Minneapolis: Burgess Pub., 1975), edited by Gerhard Weinberg .)

    Please be clear on how the material in these last two classes differs from the earlier material on ideologies. The material that was earlier assigned from Marx's Manifesto and Hitler's Mein Kampf, and the material about feminism, environmentalism, and ISIS described in the articles by Jaggar, Ellis, and Wood all gave us summaries of the theories—messages, myths, ideologies; call them what you will—that different ideological movements offered. The approaches that we studied by Frederick Watkins, Norman Cohn, and Eric Voegelin highlighted certain characteristics of those theories, which we have called "ideologies." In other words, we had been trying to evaluate the truth of the ideologies or theories of various nineteenth, twentieth, and twenty-first century movements.

    Gregor is looking not only at the theories, which he calls the myths, of some real political mass movements, but at their overall motivations and methods of acquiring followers. He calls this comprehensive information the "ideology" of the movement. This use of the term is different from the use that we have been making of it thus far.

    We should also note here that not all political mass movements are "fascist," as Gregor uses that term, even though they may use some of the same techniques for acquiring and maintaining political power. For example, the Bolshevik movement of Lenin in Russia was not a "fascist" movement. You should come away from the Gregor article with a brief, one-sentence definition of "fascism," as Gregor conceives of it.

    I will return the papers on Tuesday. The mid-term on ideology will be on Friday, April 1st.

    For the Class of March 22d:

    We are going to shift gears a bit for this Tuesday and next Tuesday and focus specifically on Fascism as it existed in Italy and, perhaps, Germany in the 20th century. I'd like you to read a bit about the history of the movement and what Mussolini said about the movement. Then let's watch videos!

    Please do the following for Tuesday:

    1. Check out Wikipedia or another relatively reliable site (or even a book with paper pages!) to get an idea of how the movement behaved in Italy from 1919 until the end of WW2
    2. Use one of these timelines as an outline of the history of the movement:
    3. Read Benito Mussolini's "Doctrine of Fascism" article in the Italian Encyclopedia, 1932) What does this tell you about Fascism? What information can you take away from this article, the only one Mussolini ever wrote to explain his idea of Fascism?
    4. Check out a couple of these videos of Hitler and Mussolini speeches (I suggest at least the first three or four):
    We will continue with the study of ideologies and discuss the assigned reading by Graeme Wood, "What ISIS Really Wants" as well as finishing the discussion of Richard Ellis's "Apocalypse and Authoritarianism in the Radical Environmental Movement." Be sure to read the other material in the Ellis handout as well. Compare the apocalyptic screenplays of both movements, ISIS and the radical environmentalists: how are they similar? how are they distinctly different? Apply the salvational characteristics adduced by Norman Cohn to both ideologies. Extra copies of each are in the rack on my office door. The school is open this week, and I will have office hours on Friday morning.

    For the Week of February 29th:

    For Friday, please read the handout on environmentalism by Richard Ellis. Extra copies are in the rack on my office door.

    The handout includes the author's introduction, the first few paragraphs of chapter 8, all of chapter 9, and the references (footnotes) for chapter 9. The author's remarks exemplify what I have referred to as "intellectual honesty"—a lesson in scholarship for us all, especially in this season of political elections. The paragraphs from chapter 8 serve as a general introduction to the subject of environmentalism in America. Chapter 9 provides the main material for the class discussion.

    We will begin the class discussion, however, with an analysis of Jaggar's "radical feminism" by applying the approaches of Watkins and Cohn to the outline of radical feminism that Jaggar presents.

    For Tuesday, please read the handout on feminism by Alison Jaggar entitled "Political Philosophies of Women's Liberation." (The cover page has the title Society and the Individual.) We will begin class applying the criteria of Norman Cohn to the Marx and Hitler myths.

    As you read the Jaggar essay, note the scope from non-ideological varieties of feminism to ideological varieties.

    For the seven of you who need to schedule an appointment with me to review your papers, there is a sign-up sheet on my office door, Ireton G107. Pick a time and bring your paper with you.

    Grading

    For the Week of February 22d:

    For Friday, please read (1) the Hitler Mein Kampf handout (extra copies in the rack on my office door) and (2) the conception of millenarian salvation of Norman Cohn, listed on the "approaches to political ideologies" link below the Watkins concept of ideologies.

    Tests are looking pretty good.

    We move on to the study of political ideologies and the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Two assignments for Tuesday: (1) Please read the Preface and the first two sections of the Manifesto. Then (2) on the "Approaches to Political Ideologies" link, either here on on the main page, read the opening paragraphs and the excerpts from Richard Watkins and Eric Voegelin (the first two approaches on the page).

    As you read the Manifesto try to answer the first nine of the following questions:

    1. In the first section of the Manifesto, "Bourgeois and Proletarians," what theory of history does Marx present?
    2. Who or what are the bourgeoisie?
    3. Who or what are the proletarians or the proletariat?
    4. What is the foundation of all history, politics, and civilization?
    5. What do Marx and Engels expect to happen soon?
    6. In the second section, "Proletarians and Communists," who are the communists and what is their relation to the proletarians?
    7. What is the problem with "property"? all property?
    8. What is the foundation of human culture?
    9. What is the proletarian programme (to borrow the Brit spelling)?
    10. In the third section of the Manifesto, "Socialist and Communit Literature," what is Marx's main criticism of all other socialist or communist theories?
    11. A "manifesto" is a statement in support of a call to action: what is the call to action in Marx's manifesto? (Section four of the Manifesto).

    How do Watkins's criteria fit the argument in the Manifesto?

    For the Week of February 15th:

    For the Mid-Term:

    First, the mid-term will be given in the Reinsch Library Instructional Room (in the basement/bottom floor of the library) at 2:00pm. The computer lab rooms in Rowley were all booked for Friday afternoon. Since this is the first time I am trying this, we will need to work out some details--printing your essays and so on--so allow yourself a little extra time. Get there a couple of minutes early if you can. I will send out a group email informing everyone in the class about the location of the exam.

    Second, the exam will consist of three or four essay questions about the assigned readings. One of the questions may be preceded with passages to identify by author and title of the work they appeared in. On this exam, the identifications are worth a maximum of two points added or two points subtracted from your essay scores—do not spend too much time on them; they are not worth nearly as much as your essay answers.

    The bluebook answers should be written in ink, blue or black, not pencil. Bring your student ID number with you; do not write your name on the bluebook. No cells, no bathroom breaks.

    The central focus of the questions will always be on John Locke's Second Treatise, of course, but you should also be very familiar with the David Hume essays and the excerpts from Hobbes's Leviathan that were assigned. You should be familiar with material from Aristotle, Aquinas, and Rousseau, too, but since we did not spend nearly as much time on these sources, they will not be the central focus of any of the questions. A question might call for a comparison-contrast covering these sources, particularly Aristotle, whose Classical tradition views provide a counterweight to the others. In describing what Locke's views are on a particular subject, it is a good idea to compare and contrast them to the views of others to demonstrate what Locke's views are not.

    As you study for the exam, consider the following questions:

    These are some of the basic issues found in the assigned readings. We have discussed these questions more than once in class. Locke, in particular, repeatedly addresses several of these issue in the assigned readings (he is very repetitive).

    If you did not receive your paper when I handed them out in class, they are in the rack on my office door.

    Please read Hume's "Of the Origin of Government" and the second paragraph of Chapter One of John Stuart Mill's essay On Liberty (you may read more if you wish).

    I will post some study questions for the exam over the next few days.

    For the Week of February 8th:

    Some more Locke for Friday: paragraphs 132-34, 136-42, 159-60, 202-204, 211, 223-25. Take a look at the surrounding paragraphs, too. This material is at the core of American explanations of what powers the government has or ought to have, what forms of civil disobedience are permissible, what justified the American Revolution. It is very familiar material in the rhetoric of American politics.

    The assignment for Tuesday, February 16th, will be Hume's "Of the Origin of Government" and the second paragraph of Chapter One of John Stuart Mill's essay On Liberty. The exam will ask you detailed questions about these readings, so read and re-read them now while you have time.

    For Tuesday, we will discuss in more detail the differences between Hobbes's, Locke's, and Rousseau's social contracts. It will be Question and Answer format, so come prepared to answer the following questions:

    The material already assigned from Hobbes, Rousseau, and Locke contains most of this information, so you must review it. The only new reading assignment is these paragraphs from Leviathan, chapter 20, and these paragraphs from Locke's Second Treatise: 57-58, 135, 149, 186 (compare ¶186 to Hobbes's views in Leviathan, chapter 20).

    You might want ot look at paragraphs that address some of the questions we discussed in class:

    The mid-term will be given on Friday, February 19th. It will focus exclusively on the assigned readings from Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, and Hume. This is a limited amount of material. The questions will ask for details from the readings, not just the general themes that we discuss in class. So do yourself a favor: read and reread the assigned material. You have a couple of weeks here to get into Locke's ideas and understandings. Try to process and understand what he and the other writers are arguing. Do not simply try to memorize a few things the night before the test.

    For the Week of February 1st:

    If you have some writing questions, I'll be in my office from 3:00 to 4:00 Wednesday afternoon. I'm thinking quotes and footnotes and punctuation and that kind of stuff. Come on in and ask about it.

    The assignment for Friday is the one-page paper, Locke §§ 100-106, and the handout of David Hume's essay "Of the Original Contract". (His essay "Of the Origin of Government" is also relevant, but I am not formally assigning it.) The paragraphs from Locke set up the problem of the lack of historical examples of people actually making social contracts, which is the problem that Hume focuses on in both of his essays. These readings fit together pretty well. Extra copies of the Hume essay are in the rack on my office door. You need that hard copy becuase it has the page numbers that you must cite in your paper; the online version above does not.

    The paper asks you to address this question: How do Locke and Hume disagree on the historical—the real—existence of social contracts (or the synonym "social compacts") as the foundations of real societies?

    Rules/Guidelines for One-Page Papers.

    1. The paper must, of course, be typed and submitted as a hard copy. Nothing handwritten or emailed (see below) will be accepted.
    2. The only sources to be used are the assigned readings—no other primary or secondary materials—written or oral, internet, paper, or personal—may be used or consulted. This is essentially a closed-book exam.
    3. The absolute limit is one page. I will not read anything that is not on that one page. Use a twelve point font, preferably Times New Roman, Univers, Garamond, or CG Times, black ink, double-spaced, and the default page margins: typically one inch all around.
    4. A title page is required. To the one page paper, attach a title page like this one. Use only your Marymount Student I.D. number—NOT YOUR NAME. YOUR NAME SHOULD NOT APPEAR ANYWHERE ON THE TITLE PAGE OR ANYPLACE ELSE ON THE PAPER. I WANT COMPLETE ANONYMITY. If you violate this anonymity rule, I will not accept the paper and you will receive a zero.
    5. Use the footnote format that I explain below and in class.
    6. Do not begin the paper with a restatement of the topic. You do not have enough space for wasted words, so get right into a thesis statement and your supporting statements. The paper should be divided into at least two paragraphs.
    7. The deadline is the beginning of class on Friday, February 5th. This means you must come to class and stay for the whole class: do not put it in the rack on my office door. Do not try to give it to me after class. If you cannot make it to class, you must email a copy of the paper to me by 2:00am Friday and get me a hard copy by Tuesday the 9th at the latest. I will not read the emailed copy, but will check it against the hard copy after I correct the hard copy. The absence will be excused or unexcused, as appropriate under the rules of the syllabus.
    8. I will ratchet up the grading of the papers: (1) a good-faith, on-time submission that shows effort will receive the full five points, (2) 50-50 writing-content on the second ten-point paper so a paper with lousy writng but good content (or vice-versa) will pass, and (3) the writing and content counted together on the third ten-point paper so a paper with more than three errors will fail regardless of content.

    The purpose of the references is to enable me to find the exact passage you are quoting or paraphrasing or otherwise referring to. Titles of works are italicized; titles of articles, essays, and chapters are placed in quotes. For this paper there are several possible sources that you may cite:

    1. Passages from Hume's "Of the Original Contract" are cited by the page numbers of the handout version that I give you.
    2. Passages from Locke's Second Treatise of Government are cited by either section ("§")or paragraph ("¶") number. Both symbols are available on Microsoft Word.
    3. Passages from Hobbes's Leviathan are cited by chapter number. You might want to use a reference to Hobbes in your paper, but you do not have to do so.

    A few examples:

    1John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, §102.

    2Hume, "Of the Original Contract," 5.

    3Ibid., 3. [Do not give all of the information you did in the first citation to Hume. Use Ibid. for that.]

    4Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, ch. 16.

    5Ibid. [This is a reference to exactly the same work and exactly the same chapter cited in the immediately preceding footnote. Do not give all of the information you did in the first citation to Hobbes. Use Ibid. for that.]

    6Ibid., ch. 13. [This is a reference to the last cited work, but a different chapter. Do not give all of the information you did in the first citation to Hobbes. Use Ibid. for that.]

    7Locke, §95. [This is a subsequent reference to a source cited earlier, but not in the immediately preceding footnote. Do not give all of the information you did in the first citation to Locke. Use an abbreviated reference to either the author or the title for that. You can't use Ibid. here because you are not referring to the source in the immediately preceding note, which is Hobbes.]

    At least five references/footnotes are required. Use that excerpt from Gregor's book on Fascism as a model to see how footnotes should look. It is the last sheet of the handout on Hume that I gave you.

    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. Each footnote itself is punctuated with a final period. Use Ibid. as appropriate. Refer back to the Lippmann essay. The method of notation in that essay is very similar to the Chicago Style method that I am asking you to use. It isn't difficult.

    The other punctuation to be mastered is the introduction of quotes. If you introduce them using the word "that" (what Turabian calls run-in quotes), 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!

    One further note: do not use the noun "human" as a synonym for "man" unless you are specifically distinguishing between a human trait (note the adjective here) and a divine or animal trait. The noun "human" implies this distinction. In this discipline, the noun "man" is the standard reference in works of political theory and philosophy.

    The readings for Tuesday will be from Locke and Hobbes; the reading for Friday will be primarily from David Hume. The first paper is due Friday.

    For Tuesday, please read the (1) the first two paragraphs and the last three paragraphs of Hobbes's Leviathan, chapter 17, and (2) the following sections ("§")/parts/paragraphs ("¶") from Locke's Second Treatise: §§ 9-15, 87-89, 95-99, 123-131, 134. These passages describe Locke's theory of the motiviation to establish a political or civil society, the proper method of forming that society, and the purpose and proper authority possessed by political or civil societies. ("Political" and "civil" are here synonymous; a political or civil society is a group of people organized and governed to act as a unit.) You should also take a look at §§78, 84, 85, 86. They describe the kinds of non-political societies or associations or partnerships that Locke distinguishes from the political, ala Aristotle in the Politics.

    For the Week of January 25th:

    If we meet Tuesday, we will discuss the three readings assigned last time. All the readings are available by links below, so I am expecting all of you, including those of you who already took POL 210, to have read them. We will discuss the "Introduction to Political Theory" more than I originally planned. You should know the four traditions and the five fundamental conceptions that are discussed in the essay.

    If you still do not have a copy of Locke's Second Treatise, email me and I will order cheap, used copies from Amazon. You will pay me what the copies cost. With Amazon Prime, I'll have them for you by Friday (weather permitting).

    For the Week of January 18th:

    For Friday (the last class day before the Big Blizzard), please read (1) the handout with excerpts from Bacon, Descartes, and Hobbes on the rejection of the classical tradition, (2) these excerpts from the modern philosophers Francis Bacon, Rene Descartes, and Thomas Hobbes, and (3) the essay "Introduction to Political Theory," linked here and on the main webpage below this assignment page link. Those of you who took POL 210 may find it useful to review the essay. Those of you who did not take POL 210 must read it.

    As you read the excerpts from Locke, Hobbes, and Rousseau, ask each of them what the ultimate basis of moral-legal-political authority is. How does each differ from, or not differ from, Aristotle, St. Thomas, and the ancients on this question of ultimate authority.

    By the way, as indicated on the syllabus, you will need HARD COPIES, that is PAPER BOOKS of the Lippmann and the Locke texts. I think some of you were saying Kindle versions of one or both books were available. I am not aware of a Kindle hard copy version, but there may be one. If there is not, then you must get a HARD COPY of Locke's Second Treatise and Walter Lippmann's Public Philosophy for class. Check the syllabus.

    For Tuesday, please read the materials in the handout from Aristotle (Politics, Book One, chapters 1 & 2) and St. Thomas Aquinas ("Treatise on Law," Questions 91 (partial) and 95 (partial)). Extra copies are available in the rack on my office door.

    For those of you who were not in POL 210 last semester, please read the "Introduction to Political Theory," available onthe link directly below this assignment page link. You should understand (1) the four traditions into which we divide political philosophy and (2) the five fundamental conceptions that make up a comprehensive political philosophy. We will review this material on Friday.

    I will hold another writing workshop on Wednesday afternoon. I will post the time here when I get final determination on the faculty meetings that I must attend.

    Welcome to the course! This semester we will be focusing on three different topics: (1) the development of political liberalism, with particular emphasis on John Locke's Second Treatise of Government; (2) the nature of political ideology; and (3) Walter Lippmann's critique of the health of Western liberal democracies.

    The assignment for Friday, January 15, is the excerpts on ancient Egyptian and Mesopotamian societies that I handed out in class. Extra copies are available in the rack on my office door. What was the source of the government authority in ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia? What was fundamentally different about those two ancient civilizations? Why was the form of government in ancient Egypt different from the form of government in ancient Mesopotamia? Come to class prepared to answer these questions and to engage in a class discussion.

    I will hold the first brief (one hour) workshop on basic writing skills on Wednesday, January 13, at 2:30. Meet at my office—G107 Ireton. I will leave a note on my door regarding the location of the workshop. Don't be afraid to come a little late.

    The material below is from past semesters. Review it if you wish.

    For the Final:

    The final will begin at 2:00pm on Friday. The two of you (Nate and Marilyn) who need to take the make-up exam for the first mid-term may take it earlier at 12:00 noon or 12:15 or 12:30. Come to my office.

    For the final, bring your take-home essay to our regular classroom and put it in the box at 2:00pm. The in-class exam is a one-hour exam and will end at 3:00pm. If you are late to the exam, it will lessen the time you have to write your bluebook essay.

    The final exam will consists of two parts. The first part of the final is the take-home question: "Explain how the Classical conception of politics rests on, and is derived from, Classical ontology, epistemology, anthropology, and ethics." In other words, exactly the same question that was the third paper topic on the Epicurean tradition. The second part of the final is a bluebook question that will constitute the in-class portion of the final exam next Friday. This question will be a slightly different question about the Classical-Christian and Gnostic conceptions of politics since politics and earthly government play a different role in those two traditions.

    The take-home essay should be typed, double-spaced, normal margins, and ID number only—no names. Type your I.D. number at the top of the page. No title page and no footnotes! The essay should be no more than one-and-a-half pages long.

    I need not tell you—but I will—that your take-home essay must be entirely your own work. No collaboration of any kind between and among students or between and among you and anyone else is permitted. It is open-book, you may take as long as you wish to write it, but you may not discuss it with anyone else!

    As I indicated in class, try to work out in your own minds how the various aspects or conceptions of the each of these traditions fit together; don't just collect quotes about the five conceptions and paste them together. Explain how the traditions' understanding of reality conditions the traditions' understanding of what we can know and how we know it? How does it determine even what "knowledge" in each tradition is? Tie this to philosophical anthropology, and so on until you get to the traditions' conceptions of politics.

    For the Last Week of Class:

    The reading assignment for Friday is Aristotle on politics and Augustine on politics.

    The paper is due on Friday. The assignment is to explain how the Epicurean conception of politics rests on, and is derived from, Epicurean ontology, epistemology, anthropology, and ethics. Please do your very best writing: writing errors can wreck the paper.

    The readings this week will cover the Epicurean, Classical, and Classical-Christian views of the basis of political authority and the proper functions of government. The last paper, due on Friday, asks you to tie together the five fundamental conceptions of the Epicurean tradition to show you how the modern-Epicurean understanding of politics and government is based on Epicurean ontology, epistemology, and so on. Part of the final exam will ask you to do the same for the Classical or the Classical-Christian tradition. This is what the whole course has been aiming at ("All actions aim at some good.").

    To allow you to get a start on your final paper, the assignment for Tuesday will be readings from the Epicurean tradition. To keep the assignment of manageable length, read the following: (1) Lucretius, Book V, lines 1011-1028, 1105-1160 (less than two pages); (2) chapters 16 and 17 of Hobbes's Leviathan; and (3) and paragraphs 32, 33, 34 of Rousseau's Discourse and chapters 1, 4, and 6 of Book One of Rousseau's Social Contract. The Hobbes and Rousseau readings are linked on the "Politics Readings" page. In these readings, and the readings for Friday from the Classical and Classical-Christian traditions, focus on what these authors describe as (1) the ultimate source of political-legal authority and (2) the fundamental purpose or function of the state.

    Rules for One-Page Papers

    POL 210 Final Paper: The topic for the final one-page paper is an explanation of how the Epicurean conception of politics is based upon, and how it is logically consistent with, the Epicurean conceptions of ontology, epistemology, anthropology (both philosophical and empirical), and ethics. If different Epicurean wirters differ significantly in their understandings of any of these concepts, note it in the paper.

    You must have at least five footnotes to the texts that you use. The whole purpose of a footnote reference is to permit and require the writer to identify the precise passages in the original material that the writer is relying on for his assertions and interpretations.

    Rules/Guidelines for One-Page Papers.

    1. The paper must, of course, be typed and submitted as a hard copy. Nothing handwritten or emailed will be accepted.
    2. The only sources to be used are the assigned readings—no other primary or secondary materials—written or oral, internet, paper, or personal—may be used or consulted. This is essentially a closed-book exam.
    3. The absolute limit is one page. I will not read anything that is not on that one page. Use a twelve point font, preferably Times New Roman, Univers, Garamond, or CG Times, black ink, double-spaced, and the default page margins: typically one inch all around.
    4. A title page is required. To the one-page paper, attach a title page like the one I show you in class, and staple the pages together. Use only your Marymount Student I.D. number—NOT YOUR NAME. YOUR NAME SHOULD NOT APPEAR ANYWHERE ON THE TITLE PAGE OR ANYPLACE ELSE ON THE PAPER. I WANT COMPLETE ANONYMITY. If you violate this anonymity rule, I will not accept the paper and you will receive a zero.
    5. Use the footnote format that I explain below and in class.
    6. Do not begin the paper with a restatement of the topic. You do not have enough space for wasted words, so get right into a thesis statement and your supporting statements.
    7. The deadline is the beginning of class on Friday, December 11th. This means you must come to class: do not put it in the rack on my office door. Do not try to give it to me after class. If you come to class and then leave early, you are officially absent.
    8. I will ratchet up the grading of the papers: (1) the grade on first paper/writing sample was based upon (a) following the directions, (b) making a good faith effort, and (c) reflecting the readings in your argument; (2) the grade on the second paper will count the writing & content equally so a paper with lousy writing but good content (or vice-versa) will pass, and (3) the writing and content counted together on this third paper so a paper with more than three errors will fail regardless of content.

    By this time, you should have mastered the punctuation of quotations and the Chicago style of footnotes, including the use of "Ibid." Mistakes in these areas will be considered as major errors. They should not be considered major errors, but since I have emphasized these formalities since the beginning of the semester, there is simply no excuse for screwing them up on this, your third 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). You should know this by now. (2) Passages from Hobbes's Leviathan are cited by chapter number. (3) Passages from Rousseau's Discourse on the Origin of Inequality are to Part and to paragraph number. (4) Passages from Rousseau's Social Contract; are to Book I (Roman numeral) and chapter numbers in Arabic numerals. Remember, titles of Books and Lucretius's poem are in italics; titles of chapters, if you use such titles, are in quotes.

    One thing you must get correct this time is the use of footnotes. 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: Rousseau said, "It is in fact easy to see that many of the differences which distinguish men are merely the effect of habit and the different methods of life men adopt in society."1 PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE GET THIS SEQUENCE CORRECT: the FINAL MARK OF PUNCTUATION, then the END QUOTATION MARK, and then the FOOTNOTE. Here are some sample footnotes:

    1Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on the Origin of Inequality,, I.48.

    2Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, ch. 13.

    3Lucretius, On the Nature of the Universe, II.350.

    4Ibid. (A reference to the exact same source—author, title, and the location in the text as the source in the previous footnote.)

    5Hobbes, ch. 17. (subsequent reference to earlier cited source, but not a source cited in the immediately preceding footnote; here it is to a different chapter in that earlier source. You cannot use "Ibid." becaue you are not referring to the immediately preceding source, so you abbreviate the earlier cited source so that the reader recognizes the source you are referring to.)

    6Lucretius, III.135. (A subsequent reference to a source cited before, but not immediately before.)

    7Ibid., V.1003. (Same source as previous footnote, but at a different place in the source.)

    All footnotes end in a period. "Ibid" is itself an abbreviation, so it is always followed by a period—Ibid. It is not italicized. If it indicates a different location in the immediately preceding source, it is followed by a comma; thus, 7Ibid., V.1028.

    The other punctuation that I will focus on in this second paper is the introduction of quotes. If you introduce them using the word "that" (what Turabian calls run-in quotes), then you do not put any punctuation immediately before or after the word "that" in the sentence. Thus, you might write the following: Marx said that "the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." Note the underlined sequence: 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 ( a "set off 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!

    One further note: do not use the noun "human" as a synonym for "man" unless you are specifically distinguishing between a human trait (note the adjective here) and a divine or animal trait. The noun "human" implies this distinction. In this discipline, the noun "man" is the standard reference.

    For the Week of November 30th:

    For Friday, please read (1) the excerpt from St. Augustine's On the Free Choice of the Will (trans. Pontiflex) and (2) the articles on human law and divine law in Question 91 of St. Thomas's Summa Theologica, both linked on the "Ethics Readings" page.

    For Tuesday, please read the handout with excerpts from Plato and Aristotle relating to ethics. Extra copies are in the rack on my office door.

    Outline of Exam answers.

    For the Class of November 24th:

    Please read the handout of excerpts about Gnostic ethics by Jonas, Cohn, Knox, and Mahe. See the Ethics reading page for a couple of study questions. Extra copies are in the rack on my office door.

    That was a good discussion on Friday; there were a lot of good questions about Locke, who seems to contradict himself on the subject of ethics in his two main works, and Rousseau, whose ideas never seem entirely straightforward. If you are interested in this at all, do yourself a favor and take a few minutes compare Locke's definitions of some key ethical terms in Book II, chapter 20, of his Essay Concerning Human Understanding to Hobbes's definitions in chapter six of Leviathan. And you may want to read the following paragraphs from Rousseau's Discourse on the Origin of Inequality: Preface, ¶5 & 10; Introduction, ¶¶5-6; Part One, ¶¶1-2, 16. You may find the answers to some of your good questions in these paragraphs.

    For the Week of November 16th:

    I'll keep it short for Friday: please read the excerpts from Locke and Hobbes on the "Ethics Readings" page. Are Locke's views on ethics in his two works consistent with each other? What do all of Hobbes's natural laws reduce to?

    I hope the exam was not too traumatic for you. There are a few good football games this weekend that you should be able to enjoy.

    We now begin the part of the course where we draw together all that we have studied thus far and tie it directly to the more familiar issues of ethics and politics. As a result, the assignments will include a lot of reviews of material that we have already read, as well as new material. We will begin again with the Epicureans. Referring to the "Ethics Readings" link on the "Readings for Western Political Concepts I" page, just below the link for this page, please (1) read Epicurus's Principal Doctrines, (2) review Lucretius's poem, Book V.925-1028, (3) review the last couple of paragraphs of chapter thirteen of Hobbes's Leviathan and his short comments (one paragraph) on "good" and "evil" in chapter six, and finally (4) read the paragraphs from Rousseau's Discourse that are linked on the page.

    There are study questions on the "Ethics Readings" page to help you through the readings. Do you find any common themes or similar ideas in the four Epicurean writers? This will be the topic of Tuesday's class discussion.

    I will begin the class by handing back the papers and discussing them briefly. As always, please feel free to come in and discuss your paper with me.

    For the Week of November 9th:

    Mid-term on Friday.

    The reading assignment for Tuesday is the two excerpts that I handed out in class: (1) chapters of St. Augustine's City of God and (2) the Gnostic Hymn of the Pearl, also known as In Quest of the Priceless Pearl. Both are also linked on the "Anthropology Readings" page. Use the commentary on the "Anthropology Readings" page both as study questions for the readings and as preparation for the mid-term.

    The mid-term will focus on all of the material on epistemology and anthropology that you have studied since the first mid-term, but yuu should also be considering how this material relates to the material on ontology. The test will consist of four essay questions; each essay should be about two pages long. The questions will basically be comparison-contrast questions. (Never begin an essay with "The views of so-and-so and so-and-so are similar in some repects but different in other respects." This goes without saying.) I suggest that you fill out a grid, like the one I provided in the "Introduction to Political Theory" essay at the beginning of the course, with the unique ideas of each tradition regarding epistemology and anthropology (and ontology). If you did that to prepare for the first exam on cosmology and ontology, then simply add to that earlier grid. I will discuss the exam in class on Tuesday.

    For the Week of November 2d:

    The assignment for Friday is the set of excerpts from Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, Book One, that I handed out in class. In the excerpts, Aristotle discusses the nature of "happiness," the highest human goal or end. Happiness is also called "felicity" in other writers that we are reading this semester. Try to identify the particular sentence or passage in which Aristotle presents his definition or understanding of what true happiness is. Compare Aristotle's definition with Hobbes's definition of felicity in chapter six of Leviathan. Check 2.b. of the "Anthropology Readings" page for some key study questions on the Aristotle excerpts.

    The one-age paper is due on Tuesday at the beginning of class. The topic for the paper and the rules for the paper are set forth below. The Classical tradition assignment that you must use to compare Classical to Epicurean anthropology is the excerpts from book Two and Six of Plato's Republic, linked on the Anthropology Readings page under Classical anthropology (2.a.).

    Try to improve your writing, especially your proper notation of footnotes and your proper punctuation of quotes, as explained in red below. I will compare your papers to your first paper; if I see no improvement in the writing, your grade will be adversely affected. Try to write better each paper.

    Rules for One-Page Papers

    POL 210 Second Paper: The topic for the second one-page paper is a comparison-contrast of the Classical anthropology assigned for Tuesday, November 3, with the Epicurean views of Lucretius, Hobbes, and Rousseau that we are reading this week. You must have at least five footnotes to the texts that you use. The whole purpose of a footnote reference is to permit and require the writer to identify the precise passages in the original material that the writer is relying on for his assertions and interpretations. The short length of the paper suggests that you structure your comparison into two substantive paragraphs—one on the classical tradition and one on the Epicurean—and either a short introductory statement of the precise point you wish to make (your thesis) or a short conclusion summarizing the point that you just made. Make sure that the two views that you compare both address the same, subject that you are comparing. In this paper, that means focusing either on the differences in philosophical andthropology or differences in empirical anthropology.

    Rules/Guidelines for One-Page Papers.

    1. The paper must, of course, be typed and submitted as a hard copy. Nothing handwritten or emailed will be accepted.
    2. The only sources to be used are the assigned readings—no other primary or secondary materials—written or oral, internet, paper, or personal—may be used or consulted. This is essentially a closed-book exam.
    3. The absolute limit is one page. I will not read anything that is not on that one page. Use a twelve point font, preferably Times New Roman, Univers, Garamond, or CG Times, black ink, double-spaced, and the default page margins: typically one inch all around.
    4. A title page is required. To the one-page paper, attach a title page like the one I show you in class, and staple the pages together. Use only your Marymount Student I.D. number—NOT YOUR NAME. YOUR NAME SHOULD NOT APPEAR ANYWHERE ON THE TITLE PAGE OR ANYPLACE ELSE ON THE PAPER. I WANT COMPLETE ANONYMITY. If you violate this anonymity rule, I will not accept the paper and you will receive a zero.
    5. Use the footnote format that I explain below and in class.
    6. Do not begin the paper with a restatement of the topic. You do not have enough space for wasted words, so get right into a thesis statement and your supporting statements.
    7. The deadline is the beginning of class on Tuesday, November 3d. This means you must come to class: do not put it in the rack on my office door. Do not try to give it to me after class.
    8. I will ratchet up the grading of the papers: (1) the grade on first paper/writing sample was based upon (a) following the directions, (b) making a good faith effort, and (c) reflecting the readings in your argument; (2) the grade on this second paper will count the writing & content equally so a paper with lousy writing but good content (or vice-versa) will pass, and (3) the writing and content counted together on the third paper so a paper with more than three errors will fail regardless of content.

    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). You should know this by now. (2) Passages from Hobbes's Leviathan are cited by chapter number. (3) Passages from Rousseau's Discourse on the Origin of Inequality are to Part and to paragraph number. (4) Passages from Plato's Republic are to the Stephanus numbers—those are the bold numbers in parentheses throughout the text. Passages from Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics are to Book and chapter number. Book numbers in Roman numerals; chapter numbers in Arabic numerals in both these cases, just like in the linked text.

    One thing you must get correct this time is the use of footnotes. 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: Rousseau said, "It is in fact easy to see that many of the differences which distinguish men are merely the effect of habit and the different methods of life men adopt in society."1 PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE GET THIS SEQUENCE CORRECT: the FINAL MARK OF PUNCTUATION, then the END QUOTATION MARK, and then the FOOTNOTE. Here are some sample footnotes:

    1Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on the Origin of Inequality,, I.48.

    2Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, ch. 13.

    3Lucretius, On the Nature of the Universe, II.350.

    4Plato, Republic, 491a.

    5Ibid. (A reference to the exact same source—author, title, the location in the text—in the very next footnote. "Ibid." refers back to the source in the previous footnote.)

    6Lucretius, III.135. (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.)

    7Ibid., V.1003. (Same source as previous footnote, but at a different place in the source.)

    The handouts from Hans Jonas this semester are good models for footnote usage. Make your footnotes look like Jonas's footnotes.

    The other punctuation that I will focus on in this second paper is the introduction of quotes. If you introduce them using the word "that" (what Turabian calls run-in quotes), then you do not put any punctuation immediately before or after the word "that" in the sentence. Thus, you might write the following: Marx said that "the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." Note the underlined sequence: 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 ( a "set off 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!

    One further note: do not use the noun "human" as a synonym for "man" unless you are specifically distinguishing between a human trait (note the adjective here) and a divine or animal trait. The noun "human" implies this distinction. In this discipline, the noun "man" is the standard reference.

    For the Week of October 26th:

    A short reading assignment for Friday: (1) please read chapter 13 of Hobbes's Leviathan, one of the most famous writings in Western Civilization; (2) review chapter 6 of Leviathan, which was assigned earlier this month as part of the epistemology reading; and (3) read the dozen or so paragraphs from Rousseau's Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, linked on the Anthropology Readings page.Compare what Rousseau says about early human behavior to what Lucretius and Hobbes say. We will begin class by looking at the last few pages of the Lucretius reading assigned for Tuesday. Then we will discuss the papers, due Tuesday.

    This week we begin the discussion of anthropology. We break this down into two categories: philosophical anthropology and empirical anthropology. Review the material on these anthropological studies in the "Introduction to Political Theory" essay that we read the first week of the course and the material in the introductory paragraph on the "Anthropology Readings" webpage.

    This first week we spend on Epicurean anthropology. Go to the Antropology Readings page, and read the passages from Lucretius that are set out in "1. Epicurean anthropology." We will do the Hobbes and Rousseau readings listed there on Friday.

    For the Week of October 19th:

    For Friday, please read the handouts of (1) excerpts from St. Augustine's writings and (2) the discussion of gnosis by Hans Jonas. The Augustine readings can also be found linked on the "Epistemology Readings" page. I will try to post some study questions on that page for the readings. This will complete our readings on epistemology. Next week we will study anthropology, and a one-page paper will be due on Friday, October 30th.

    In my haste to hand out the exams, discuss Plato, and then discuss the exams on Friday, I forgot to hand out the excerpts from Aristotle. Please read Aristotle's discussion of the intellectual virtues, Nicomachean Ethics, Book VI, chapters 2 to 7, a link for which is on the "Epistemology Readings" page, drectly under the link to Plato's Divided Line excerpt that you read for Friday. There is a link to study questions, also. Extra hard copies are in the rack on my office door; I will hand out hard copies on Tuesday to use in class.

    On Tuesday, before getting to Aristotle, I have a few more general remarks on the exam and on Plato's Divided Line/Allegory of the Cave.

    For the Class of Friday, October 16th:

    Great discussion of Hobbes on Friday! His ideas always seem to provoke a lot of interest. They are very straightforward and present a radical, logical account of epistemology (though, perhaps, untrue), as do the similar ideas in Lucretius's poem. Use them as a standard to check the other epistemologies against.

    Please read Plato's account of the divided line and the allegory of the cave. Go to the "Epistemology Readings" page for links to the text and study questions to use.

    The next paper will probably be due October 30th. I want to have the opportunity to go over your first paper with each of you. The appointment times for those meetings extends through October 23d. The next paper would be due, then, a week later.

    I will also hand back the exams. The grading scales and model answers for the exam are here.

    For the Week of October 5th:

    For Friday, please go the "Epistemology Readings" page (same place you got the Lucretius assignment for Tuesday) and read chapters 1 to 6 (in "The First Part: Of Man") of Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan. Use the study questions to help you get through the readings.

    Be sure to sign up soon for an appointment to go over your papers. There are a few slots for Wednesday afternoon, October 7th. Use 'em.

    We are on to epistemology, and we will begin again with Lucretius and his poem. Go to "Readings for Western Political Concepts I (Fall 2015)," then click on "Epistemology Readings," and read the introductory paragraph, read the material on the ancients at #1, and read the material from Lucretius at #2a. This directs you to the book, of course, just like we did it before. How is his epistemology—his theory of knowledge—tied to his ontology, which we just studied?

    We will begin the class by going over the papers.

    For the Strange Week of September 28th:

    Tuesday, of course, is the shooter drill. Let's take this seriously.

    Friday is the mid-term. Let's take this seriously, too. You have an excellent chance here to catch up on all of the readings assigned thus far in the semester. Here are some basics:

    1. There will be three or four essay questions, each asking for an answer of about two-to-three bluebook pages. The material that we have been studying will be sliced into narrow, focused questions on ontology/cosmology, mostly comparing and contrasting the different writers on issues that they have commonly addressed (relation of the divine to the universe, and so on).
    2. From the "Introduction to Political Theory" essay, you should have a clear idea of what the philosophical traditions are that we will be studying throughout the semester. We began the semester with two excerpts (the Frankforts' and Eliade's accounts) about the ancient, pre-philosophic understanding of the world, and the first mid-term will include them, but the ancients do not constitute one of the four traditions that are identified in the "Introduction to Political Theory" essay.
    3. From the "Introduction to Political Theory" essay, you should have a pretty good idea of the five fundamental philosophical conceptions that we will be studying. You should have a very good understanding of the conception of ontology/cosmology that we have been studying for the past three weeks.
    4. You should be able to identify (and spell correctly) the authors and titles of the works that have been assigned. The exam will include identification questions that are worth a few bonus points—not as much as the essays, but worth enough to give you reason to learn the authors and titles of the works.

    For the Week of September 21st:

    Last two classes before the mid-term. For Tuesday, please read The Apocryphon of John, that was handed out in class. Extra copies are in the rack on my office door. The "Cosmology-Ontology Readings" page has a number of general questions about this reading, but no extensive list of study questions. We are concerned about the same things we have been looking at over the past few weeks: the origin of the universe, the existence of a natural order, the kind of natural order that exists, the order of being (God, man, animals, plants), the relation of God to the world, the nature of God (the gods), and so on. All of this is embedded here into a sci-fi story that "John" received in a vision. Try to make sense of it. Don't rely upon me to explain it.

    I will hand back your papers by Friday.

    For Friday, I will hand out an excerpt on the relationship between Gnostic cosmology and Classical cosmology by one of the foremost students of Gnosticism, Hans Jonas.

    Next Tuesday (September 29th) is the active shooter drill; next Friday (October 2d) is the mid-term.

    For the Week of September 14th:

    As explained in class, the first one-page paper is due on Tuesday. The rules for it are below in red. The reading assignment for Tuesday is the handout including excerpts from Aristotle (the four causes from the Physics), Cicero (excerpts from De re publica and On the Nature of the Gods, Epictetus (excerpts from his Discourses, and Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (excerpts from his Meditations). Extra copies are available in the rack on my office door. Study questions are available on the Cosmology-Ontology Readings" pages, just like there were for the Frankforts-Eliade excerpts and the Lucretius excerpts. The handout material itself is also available on the "Cosmology-Ontology Readings" page via the link entitled "Classical and Stoic ontology and cosmology." (Note: You need not read the final excerpts in the handout from Aristotle on God the Prime Mover from the Metaphysics: we will discuss this excerpt briefly in class, but it is quite difficult to fathom.)

    Your one-page paper must reflect your reading of these excerpts from Aristotle, Cicero, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius. Four or five footnotes on these sources alone are advisable. Demonstrate clearly to me that you have read them—not just the first page or two. I look for evidence that you have read the assignments through to the end.

    One other note: in the paper do not quote or cite in any way my essay "Introduction to Political Theory," which was the first class assignment two weeks ago. You may—and should—use any material in the essay that helps you understand the readings, but do not quote or paraphrase it in this paper. You may treat the essay's material as commonly understood, public information that needs no citation or reference.

    Friday's assignment will be excerpts from St. Augustine and St. Thomas.

    Rules for One-Page Papers

    POL 210 First Paper: The topic for the first one-page paper is a comparison-contrast of the Classical cosmology or ontology assigned for Tuesday with either the Epicurean view of Lucretius or the ancient view described by Eliade and the Frankforts. You must have at least four footnotes to the texts that you use. The whole purpose of a footnote reference is to permit and require the writer to identify the precise passages in the original material that the writer is relying on for his assertions and interpretations. The short length of the paper suggests that you structure your comparison into two substantive paragraphs—one on the classical tradition and one on either the Epicurean or the ancient—and either a short introductory statement of the precise point you wish to make (your thesis) or a short conclusion summarizing the point that you just made. If you wish, you may focus the topic a bit by comparing the views on, say, the relation of God (the gods, the divine) to nature, or on the relation of man to nature, or on the relation of God (the gods, the divine) to man. Make sure that the two views that you compare both address the subject that you are comparing.

    Rules/Guidelines for One-Page Papers.

    1. The paper must, of course, be typed and submitted as a hard copy. Nothing handwritten or emailed will be accepted.
    2. The only sources to be used are the assigned readings—no other primary or secondary materials—written or oral, internet, paper, or personal—may be used or consulted. This is essentially a closed-book exam.
    3. The absolute limit is one page. I will not read anything that is not on that one page. Use a twelve point font, preferably Times New Roman, Univers, Garamond, or CG Times, black ink, double-spaced, and the default page margins: typically one inch all around.
    4. A title page is required. To the one page paper, attach a title page like the one I show you in class. Use only your Marymount Student I.D. number—NOT YOUR NAME. YOUR NAME SHOULD NOT APPEAR ANYWHERE ON THE TITLE PAGE OR ANYPLACE ELSE ON THE PAPER. I WANT COMPLETE ANONYMITY. If you violate this anonymity rule, I will not accept the paper and you will receive a zero.
    5. Use the footnote format that I explain below and in class.
    6. Do not begin the paper with a restatement of the topic. You do not have enough space for wasted words, so get right into a thesis statement and your supporting statements.
    7. The deadline is the beginning of class on Tuesday, September 15th. This means you must come to class: do not put it in the rack on my office door. Do not try to give it to me after class.
    8. I will ratchet up the grading of the papers: (1) the grade on this first paper/writing sample is based upon (a) following the directions, (b) making a good faith effort, and (c) reflecting the readings in your argument; (2) the grade on the second paper will count the writing & content equally so a paper with lousy writng but good content (or vice-versa) will pass, and (3) the writing and content counted together on the third paper so a paper with more than three errors will fail regardless of content.

    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 Eliade and the Frankforts are cited by page number. (3) Passages from Aristotle, Cicero, Epictetus, or Marcus Aurelius are to book and part/chapter/section number. Book numbers in Roman numerals; chapter numbers in Arabic numerals in both these cases, just like in the linked text.

    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 the Frankforts, Eliade, Lucretius, Cicero, and Epictetus:

    1Henri and H.A. Frankfort, "Myth and Reality," in Before Philosophy, 18.

    2Mircea Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane, 8.

    3Lucretius, On the Nature of the Universe, I.350.

    4Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods, VII.6.

    5Ibid. (A reference to the exact same source—author, title, the location in the text—in the very next footnote. "Ibid." refers back to the source in the previous footnote.)

    6Lucretius, III.135. (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.)

    7Epictetus, Discourses, V.13. (new source)

    For the Week of September 7th:

    For Friday, please read the sections of Lucretius's On the Nature of the Universe that are listed on the "Cosmology-Ontology Readings" page. Use the study questions linked there to help you work through the material. I think you will find what Lucretius said 2000 years ago very interesting.

    We will begin Friday's class with a recap of the readings on ancient man that we discussed on Tuesday. I will also outline the directions for the one-page paper, due on Tuesday.

    For Tuesday, please read the handout containing excerpts from the Frankforts and Mircea Eliade. Extra copies are in the rack on my office door, but I will remove them before class on Tuesday.

    To get the study questions, click on the link entitled "Readings for Western Political Concepts I (Fall 2015)," which is directly below this assignment link on my main webpage. Once you are on the "Readings for Western Political Concepts I (Fall 2015)" page, click on "Cosmology-Ontology Readings," read the short introductory paragraph, and then go to "1. The pre-philosophic mythopoeic understanding of the cosmos." You will find a link to "Study questions" in the first paragraph. (Read the rest of the material on the pre-philosophical mythopoeic understanding, too.) This Cosmology-Ontology Readings page should be your guide for the rest of the readings leading up to the first exam.

    I will also forward to all of you an email I received yesterday describing the preparations for the active shooter drill, which will take place on our floor of Rowley on September 29. That date is earlier than I expected, and I may move the exam from Friday the 2d to Tuesday the 6th. I would love to complain about the disruption, but I guess sometimes preparation for survival takes precedence over scholarly discussion.

    Welcome to the course! This is a course that studies some of the basic concepts of Western political thinkers from Plato through Hobbes. The purpose is to help you understand the fundamental questions that our greatest political theorists and philosophers address in their writings and to indicate how several great traditions of philosophy answer those questions.

    The assignment for Friday's class is the essay entitled "Introduction to Political Theory" that was handed out in class. Extra copies of the handout, as well as extra copies of the syllabus, are available in the rack on my office door: Ireton G107. You should come to class with an idea of the five fundamental conceptions of political philosophy and the four philosophical traditions that we will be studying. I will be asking you a lot of questions.

    The assignment for Tuesday, September 8th, will be a handout containing excerpts from Henri and H.A. Frankfort and Mircea Eliade, and the assignment for Friday the 11th will be readings from Lucretius, On the Nature of the Universe, so there's no need for any electronic devices in class for the next couple of weeks.

    The material below is from past semesters. You may safely disregard it.

    Nature or Nurture?

    A Leadership Gene?

    For the Final:

    The final exam will consist of three essay questions.

    Thus, the exam will be heavy on the material that we have read over the past four weeks and light on the material from the rest of the semester.

    On the application of the approaches to political ideologies to assigned readings, please study the approaches of FREDERICK WATKINS and KENNETH MINOGUE. I will ask you to apply ONE of these two to a couple of the alleged ideologies that we have read. I will seleect the approach—Watkins's or Minogue's—that you are to use, so you had better bone up on both of them. I will give you a bit of choice on the ideologies to which you shall apply them. You should be familiar with the basics of all of the readings (except Crichton) that we have studied: The Communist Manifesto," "Mein Kampf," the various feminist ideologies described by Jaggar, the various environmentalist ideologies described by Ellis, and Fascism/fascism described by Gregor. But not Crichton; you may now forget about Professor Hoffman and the PLM for the rest of your lives.

    Regarding Lippmann and ideologies, he discusses them quite a bit at the end of the first part of the book. What did he say about Marxism? about Nazism? What do you think he would say about radical feminism or radical environmentalism? But I doubt that Lippmann's arguments would proved too popular or persuasive with Nazis, Marxists, feminists, or EarthFirst!ers. What not? Why is Lippmann's argument not acceptable to followers of political ideologies?

    Regarding the first readings of the course, from the ancient or cosmological societies described by Jacobsen and Wilson through Machiavelli to the social contract theorists, Hume, and Burke, we said that they were largely concerned with the basis and extent of political authority. Radical ideologies attack the roots of political authority in existing societies, particularly societies based on early modern and liberal ideas (I use "early modern" to include Hobbes and Rousseau in the mix; they are essentially no liberal in the Lockean tradition but have the social contract incommon with him). Radical ideologies, however, also have certainl fundamental ideas in common with some of the authors just named. Some writers have argued that modern ideologies have reintroduced the idea of "cosmological" societies, which are similar in some fundamental principles to the ancient Eguptian and Mesopotamian states. Some of you in class said that the PLM regime reminded you of Machiavelli or Hobbes. Machiavelli's Prince was said to be a favorite reading of Nazis, Communists, and Fascists. I wonder why?

    I want you to ponder these things on the final.

    A few comments on the recent one-page papers:

    Because the first exam question is intended to be a similar exercise to the paper that you just handed in, I wanted to comment on those papers (I corrected them over the weekend: they will be available for you after you take the final) to give you a few tips on writing the exam question.

    First,, be sure to apply the criteria or characteristics or components of the approach to the myth or movement that you are analyzing in a methodical, systematic way. Using the Cohn approach as an example, and applying it to the myth in the Communist Manifesto, you would begin by asking whether the Manifesto offers a promise of salvation that is collective. First: does the Manifesto offer a vision of "salvation" or not? If not, Cohn is not relevant at all. If so, you would then discuss in a paragraph or so the relevant passages in the Manifesto that bear on collectivity and make a determination that collectivity is or is not a characteristic of Marxian salvation. BE TRUE TO THE FACTS! Then, you would proceed to Cohn's second characteristic, terrestriality—will the promised salvation take place during our lives on earth as opposed to in heaven after death. Again, discuss the relevant passages of the Manifesto and make a determination. Then consider Cohn's third characteristic, will salvation be imminent—soon and sudden? Be reasonable: "soon" is not necessarily "today," but within our lifetime. A radical transformation of all social reality within a lifetime is, I assure you, "soon"! Then to the totality of the transformation: does Marx promise a total or radical transformation or simply reforms that will make the world incrementally better? Then, the characteristic of miraculousness. Christian salvation is a supernatural miracle ("miracles" are all supernatural!). Clearly, Marx's atheistic program does not acknowledge supernatural causes, so this one would not apply. If three or four of the characteristics apply, can you conclude that Cohn's concept fits the Manifesto's vision? You make the call. The point is to make a point-by-point, characteristic-by-characteristic application of the approach to the subject matter. Very, very few of you did this and this was the main consideration of my grading. It was/is a simple exercise.

    Second, when you make the application, DO NOT FORCE THE CHARACTERISTICS ONTO THE FACTS OR THE MATERIAL THAT YOU ARE ANALYZING! Every single paper concluded that the PLM regime was ideological, regardless of the approach that was chosen. That was a questionable conclusion. At least some of you could have/should have reasonably concluded that the PLM regime was, on balance, not ideological. (Where was the "myth"? Is the U.S. really a totalitarian state? Really?) Be open to the facts of the case. Make reasonable, common-sense determinations of whether each particular characteristic does in fact fit the subject matter and how well the characteristic fits. They do not all have to fit perfectly. As I indicated above, you, as political analyst, must make the call, but make it a reasonable one. Use your own good judgment.

    Finally, many of you had a lot of trouble separating Professor Hoffman's account of the PLM regime from the PLM regime itself. You applied the characteristics of the approach you were using to Hoffman's own analytical conclusions—his theory—rather than simply to what he was describing about the PLM regime. By logical extension, this practice would make "analysis" impossible: every neutral or scholarly analyst of a political regime would be an "ideologue," or creator of ideology. (This is a thoroughly Marxist argument!) Gregor's theory would be ideological because he divided the Italian world into a Manichaean dualism of "us" and "them," good guys and bad guys. A critic of the Nazi regime would be an ideologue because his criticism of the regime could be understood to be a "call to action" to rebel against the Nazi regime! No clear distinction between subject matter and critical or analytical approach could be maintained. Hoffman's theory, like Gregor's theory, Watkins's theory, Cohn's theory, and so on, is not ideological: these are analytical approaches that seek to apply a set of criteria to a subject matter and draw conclusions. Don't get the two modes of thought confused.

    The exam question should be a simpler exercise that the one assigned for the paper; I want you to methodically and reasonably apply either Watkins's or Minogue's—you must be prepared for both!—to one of the myths that we have studied: communist, nazi, feminist, or environmentalist. Methodical and reasonable application.

    For the Week of April 27th:

    Because of some questions from the class, I have tried to further clarify the rule on footnotes in red below. It is really, really, really easy! The usual scholarly rule is that you must cite any information that is not generally known: I am disregarding that general rule in this exercise, and I want you to disregard it, too. See below.

    For Friday: the final paper:

    Read the excerpt from Michael Crichton's State of Fear and apply point-by-point one of the four—or five, if you decide to use Gregor—approaches to ideology that we have discussed: Watkins's, Cohn's, O'Sullivan's, or Minogue's (or Gregor's, if you think you can boil down his concept of ideology into a few basic components).

    Late in his novel, Crichton introduces a totally fictional character named Professor Norman Hoffman, who explains to the novel's protagonist, Peter Evans, his theory of the fundamental political condition of America (and the Western European liberal democracies). Hoffman calls this condition the State of Fear, and he attributes it to a complex of politicians, lawyers, and media journalists that he calls the "PLM." Imagine yourself as Peter Evans, confronted with this crazy old professor's (in my profession, we all end up that way eventually) wild theory.

    What would you make of it? How would you evaluate it? How would you think it through?

    Would you believe Hoffman's theory? Most of it? Part of it? Or would you just smile, ignore it, get back to your smart phone as soon as you can, and leave its analysis and evaluation to the politcal analyists? BUT WAIT!! You are a politics major, a budding political analyst! It's your job to do the analyzing and evaluating! If you don't do it, the drooling masses on their cell phones sure aren't going to do it for you! (Sorry about all of the exclamation points. It's a sign of bad writing, but sometimes I just get carried away. Sorry.)

    Does the theory remind you of anything that we have read in the course? Perhaps the PLM could be likened to a radical political party or group of political elites. Perhaps the State of Fear is a totalitarian state or condition that the PLM is promoting. But if so, then according to most understandings of totalitarianism, the elites would establish the totalitarian condition by using a political ideology, or what we have been calling a myth, or a cosmic screenplay, or a cosmic scenario, or perhaps a "worldview." (See the link entitled "Friedrich and Brzezinski's 'Totalitarian Syndrome,'" on the same line as the link to the "Approaches to Political Ideologies," which you will be using for this paper.)

    If you think the best way of approaching this problem is an analysis of the political behavior of the PLM, like Gregor does with the Fascists and, to a lesser extent, like Ellis does with the radical environmentalists, apply the characteristics of the activist/fascist style of politics suggested by Noel O'Sullivan to what Professor Hoffman tells us and determine whether Hoffman is describing a fascist movement. (Don't let Hoffman's own use of the word "fascist" fool you.) (Use O'Sullivan's characteristics of the "limited" style of politics only to help you personally understand what O'Sullivan says is the non-ideological alternative to the activist style.) You may also try to apply Gregor's conception of the fascist ideology to the PLM regime, but you will have to identify the components of his approach and apply each component methodically. I suggest that you look at pages 259-262 of his essay for those components.

    Or, if you think the best way of approaching the problem is to analyze the PLM worldview (myth) itself, decide whether the approach of Watkins or Cohn or Minogue is the best to shed some light on the issue and methodically apply each of the characteristics they adduce to the worldview that Hoffman describes. Remember, Watkins expressly offers a complex concept of "ideology." Cohn offers an analysis of millenarian salvation: according to Professor Hoffman, does the PLM offer a vision of salvation? If not, don't apply Cohn's approach. Does PLM offer a theory of world-wide "oppression" or intentional evil? If not, then Minogue's approach is probably not the most relevant. Whichever approach you choose, make sure you have a good idea of what it means before applying it. Know what you are doing, what you are looking for. Perhaps only some of the components/symptoms,characteristics apply; then you must decide on balance whether you can conclude that enough of the components apply to be analytically useful. (If none of the components of a particular apply, DO NOT USE THAT APPROACH!. And never cram or bend the facts to fit a pre-conceived theory or approach.)

    Whichever approach you select, offer a short rationale in your introduction for your choice of that approach.

    My main goal in this assignment is to get you to methodically and systematically analyse a problem using a given theory or analytical approach. My secondary goal is to see if you can think the problem through and apply an approach that fits the problem well. The Crichton excerpt should be fun to read—not at all hard to understand. The analysis should be methodical.

    For this paper, most of the usual rules apply:

    Rules/Guidelines for One-Page Papers.

    1. The paper must, of course, be typed and submitted as a hard copy. Nothing handwritten or emailed will be accepted.
    2. The only sources to be used are the assigned readings—Michael Crichton's book, the material on my website regarding ideological approaches, and, if you use Gregor, Gregor's "The Ideology of Fascism."
    3. The absolute limit is one page. I will not read anything that is not on that one page. Use a twelve point font, preferably Times New Roman, Univers, Garamond, or CG Times, black ink, double-spaced, and the default page margins: typically one inch all around.
    4. A title page is required. To the one page paper, attach a title page like the one I showed you in class, or print your paper on the opposite side of the title page. Use only your Marymount Student I.D. number—NOT YOUR NAME. YOUR NAME SHOULD NOT APPEAR ANYWHERE ON THE TITLE PAGE OR ANYPLACE ELSE ON THE PAPER. I WANT COMPLETE ANONYMITY. If you violate this anonymity rule, I will not accept the paper and you will receive no credit.
    5. Use the footnote format that I explain below and in class.
    6. Do not begin the paper with a restatement of the topic. You do not have enough space for wasted words, so get right into a thesis statement and your supporting statements. The paper should be divided into at least two paragraphs.
    7. The deadline is the beginning of class on Friday, May 1st. This means you must come to class: do not put it in the rack on my office door. Do not try to give it to me after class. If you cannot make it to class for a documented reason (medical, legal, employer document in hand), you may email a copy of the paper to me by 11:00am Friday to meet the 11:00am deadline, BUT since this is the last day of class and since I must correct three classes worth of papers over the weekend, I must have the hard copy before I leave campus Friday afternoon. You must get me the hard copy on Friday before I leave campus (3:00pm).
    8. I will ratchet up the grading of the papers: (1) no grade on this first paper/writing sample if it is a good faith effort, (2) 50-50 writing-content on the second paper so a paper with lousy writng but good content (or vice-versa) will pass, and (3) the writing and content counted together on this third paper so a paper with more than three errors will fail regardless of content. For this last paper, mistakes in footnote form (ibid., citing titles properly, period at the end of each note) and in punctuating quotes will count as errors. We have been over this many times.

    The purpose of the references is to enable me to find the exact passage in the Crichton excerpt that you are quoting or paraphrasing or otherwise referring to.

    For this paper the only sources that you must cite in footnotes are the pages you use in Michael Crichton's State of Fear and maybe in A. James Gregor's article "The Ideology of Fascism" (if you use Gregor's approach). (Remember: book titles must be italics; chapter titles in quotes.) Simply identify the approach that you use in the text of your paper, not in the footnotes. Do not cite the books in which the approaches of Watkins, Cohn, O'Sullivan, or Minogue are found! Do not cite my website! Simply use the material on the website without citing it! Thus, in your paper you might say, "According to Frederick Watkins, ideologies typically have utopian goals," or "Norman Cohn says that millenarian salvation was collective, not individual." That's all you need to say. You should not cite Watkins, or Watkins and his book, or my website in a footnote. You should not cite Cohn, or Cohn and his book, or my website in a foornote. Just mentioning which approach you are using is sufficient.

    Here are the examples to follow for the various sources:

    1Michael Crichton, State of Fear, 569.

    2Ibid., 570.

    3A. James Gregor, "The Ideology of Fascism," 264. (Cite Gregor only if you quote him or use his article as your approach to the Crichton material.)

    That's all you have to cite! Do not cite my webpage! Do not cite Watkins's book, Cohn's book, Minogue's book, or O'Sullivan's book—in fact, DO NOT CITE WATKINS, COHN, MINOGUE, OR O'SULLIVAN AT ALL! SIMPLY IDENTIFY THEM BY NAME (NOT BOOK) IN YOUR PAPER AND USE THEM. I am deliberately trying to make this as simple as possible for this particular paper.

    At least four or five references to the Crichton text will be required, because you will refer to specific passages from the Crichton book when you apply the different criteria.

    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. Each footnote itself is punctuated with a final period. Use Ibid. as appropriate. Refer back to the Lippmann essay. The method of notation in that essay is very similar to the Chicago Style method that I am asking you to use. It isn't difficult.

    The other punctuation to be mastered at this time is the introduction of quotes. If you introduce them using the word "that" (what Turabian calls run-in quotes), 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 Tuesday, no new reading assignment except the Norman Cohn synopsis on the "Approaches to Political Ideologies" link. We will finish up the discussion of Gregor's article.

    Now is your chance to catch up on the readings before finals week!!

    On the "Approaches to Political Ideologies" link, there are four approaches with which you should be familiar by Tuesday: Frederick Watkins's approach, Kenneth Minogue's approach (both of which we have discussed in class; you should try to tie it to the Gregor article.), Noel O'Sullivan's approach (which I briefly mentioned in class on Friday), and Norman Cohn's approach. You will have to be familiar with at least two of them for the final, so look these four over closely and carefully. There are significant differences among them. Some are useful in analyzing ideologies or ideological myths, like those of Mark, Hitler, and the radical feminists; some are useful in analyzing ideological movements, like the Fascist movement. Not all claim to be concepts of ideology. Look at these four carefully; study them. I will ask you to apply one of them to the Michael Crichton reading for your final paper, due Friday.

    The reading assignment for the last paper and for next Friday's class—an excerpt from Michael Crichton's novel State of Fear—is in the rack on my office door.

    Interesting NY Times story on science and public policy.

    For the Week of April 20th:

    For Friday, A. James Gregor, "The Ideology of Fascism," in Transformation of a Continent. Extra copies are in the rack on my office door. (Those quizzes are working, aren't they?) Compare Gregor's analysis of fascism to Watkins's and Minogue's approaches to political ideologies: how are they different? Are they focusing on the same aspects of political ideologies? What has "sociology" to do with Italian Fascism? What is Gregor's definition of "fascism" (if he offers one at all)?

    Incidentally, Gregor's essay appears in a book of essays edited by Gerhard Weinberg entitled Transformation of a Continent, copyright 1975. Note: Weinberg did not write Transformation of a Continent. Nobody wrote it. Weinberg edited a collection of essays and wrote an introduction. Some editor at Burgess Publishing, perhaps, decided to call the edited collection Transformation of a Continent. Gregor did not write Transformation of a Continent; Gregor wrote an essay entitled "The Ideology of Fascism," which appears in Transformation of a Continent. Note my use of italics and quotation marks. Cite Gregor accordingly. (The other essays in the collection are very good, too.)

    Please read the introductory material and the chapter entitled "Earth First! and the Misanthropy of Radical Egalitarianism" in the handout of Ellis's Dark Side of the Left. ("Misanthropy" and "egalitarianism" mean what again?) Extra copies are in the rack on my office door. Another quiz seems like a good idea.

    A couple of sites you may beinterested in:

    For the Week of April 13th:

    Copies of the reading for Friday are in the rack on my office door. The cover page has the title Society and the Individual, and the article is "Political Philosophies of Women's Liberation" by Alison Jaggar. To encourage you to acquire and read the article before class, there will be a short quiz at the beginning of class.

    For Tuesday, please read this excerpt from Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf. (What does Kampf mean?) We will also complete the discussion of the Communist Manifesto. Friday is a handout on varieties of feminism by Alison Jaggar. Take a look at a couple more concepts of ideology on the Approaches to Political Ideologies link. We will be using them in the last paper.

    For the Week of April 6th:

    I hope the test was not too bad. We begin our focus on political ideologies on Friday with Marx and Engels's Communist Manifesto—the whole thing!

    As you read the Manifesto try to answer the following questions:

    1. In the first section of the Manifesto, "Bourgeois and Proletarians," what theory of history does Marx present?
    2. Who or what are the bourgeoisie?
    3. Who or what are the proletarians or the proletariat?
    4. What is the foundation of all history, politics, and civilization?
    5. What do Marx and Engels expect to happen soon?
    6. In the second section, "Proletarians and Communists," who are the communists and what is their relation to the proletarians?
    7. What is the problem with "property"? all property?
    8. What is the foundation of human culture?
    9. What is the proletarian programme (to borrow the Brit spelling)?
    10. In the third section of the Manifesto, "Socialist and Communit Literature," what is Marx's main criticism of all other socialist or communist theories?
    11. A "manifesto" is a statement in support of a call to action: what is the call to action in Marx's manifesto? (Section four of the Manifesto).

    Also, take a look at a couple of the concepts of "ideology" on the site entitled "Approaches to Political Ideologies," on the main webpage immediately under the Bernard Crick quote, "Boredom with established truths is a great enemy of free men." Try to determine if Frederick Watkins's concept fits Marx's communism.

    Mid-term on Tuesday! Only two essay questions. The test will cover the assigned readings by Lippmann, Hume, and Burke. No identifications. Plenty of time to read or reread the material before the exam.

    You should be thoroughly familiar with the theme or argument of the book by this time. We have been studying it for more than a month, and it is only 180 pages long. In one question I will choose a specific issue that Lippmann discusses at some length in the book and ask you to explain Lippmann's argument or point. I will not choose something obscure or something he only briefly mentions. If you read the book carefully, you will have no trouble recognizing the issue. The second question will be a more general one that addresses one of the main themes or theses of the book. Your essay will require you to support your answer with your own choice of details from the book, In other words, in one question, I will ask you a detailed question and you must show me your familiarity with Lippmann's discussion of that issue; in the other question, I will ask you a general question, and you must support your more general essay response with appropriate details of your choosing from the book and, perhaps, from Hume and Burke. In either case, you will be screwed if you have not read the book carefully. The exam is designed to prove that.

    Because you have already written a paper that focuses on chapters 8 and 9, neither of the questions will repeat or focus on the paper topic, but chapters 8 and 9 are important in the overall development of Lippmann's argument and should not be ignored.

    Lord Moulton's speech on Law and Manners, noted in Lippmann, 168n7.

    For the Class of March 31st:

    We will finish up Lippmann (chapters 10 and 11) and decide on a date for the mid-term. If we decide to have the exam on Tuesday, April 7th, the exam will consist of two essay questions about Lippmann. If we decide to have the exam on Friday, April 10th, the exam will include Marx's Communist Manifesto and perhaps consist of three essay questions. I have no preference one way or the other. Think about it and we will decide on Tuesday.

    For the Week of March 23d:

    The reading assignments for the week are Lippmann, chapters 8 (already assigned) and 9. If you have not read chapters 7 and 8 closely, please do so now. We will discuss chapter 9 on Friday.

    Rules/Guidelines for One-Page Papers.

    1. The paper must, of course, be typed and submitted as a hard copy. Nothing handwritten or emailed will be accepted.
    2. The only sources to be used are the assigned readings—no other primary or secondary materials.
    3. The absolute limit is one page. I will not read anything that is not on that one page. Use a twelve point font, preferably Times New Roman, Univers, Garamond, or CG Times, black ink, double-spaced, and the default page margins: typically one inch all around.
    4. A title page is required. To the one page paper, attach a title page like the one I show you in class, or print your paper on the opposite side of the title page. Use only your Marymount Student I.D. number—NOT YOUR NAME. YOUR NAME SHOULD NOT APPEAR ANYWHERE ON THE TITLE PAGE OR ANYPLACE ELSE ON THE PAPER. I WANT COMPLETE ANONYMITY. If you violate this anonymity rule, I will not accept the paper and you will receive no credit.
    5. Use the footnote format that I explain below and in class.
    6. Do not begin the paper with a restatement of the topic. You do not have enough space for wasted words, so get right into a thesis statement and your supporting statements. The paper should be divided into at least two paragraphs.
    7. The deadline is the beginning of class on Friday, March 27th. This means you must come to class: do not put it in the rack on my office door. Do not try to give it to me after class. If you cannot make it to class, you must email a copy of the paper to me by 11:00am Friday and get me a hard copy by Tuesday the 31st at the latest. I will not read the emailed copy, but will check it against the hard copy after I correct the hard copy. The absence will be excused or unexcused, as appropriate.
    8. I will ratchet up the grading of the papers: (1) no grade on this first paper/writing sample if it is a good faith effort, (2) 50-50 writing-content on this second paper so a paper with lousy writng but good content (or vice-versa) will pass, and (3) the writing and content counted together on the third paper so a paper with more than three errors will fail regardless of content.

    The purpose of the references is to enable me to find the exact passage you are quoting or paraphrasing or otherwise referring to. Titles of works are italicized; titles of articles, essays, and chapters are placed in "quotes." For this paper your main and perhaps only source to cite is Lippmann's Public Philosophy, but conceivably you may want to cite Burke or Hume or one of the authors we studied during the first third of the course. Here are your instructions for citing works:

    1. Passages from Lippmann's Public Philosophy are cited by page number.
    2. Passages from Hume's "Of the Origin of Government" are simply attributed to the essay; no page number or other notation is necessary.
    3. Passages from Edmund Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France are cited by page number (the number in the brackets preceding the quoted passage)
    4. Passages from Aristotle's two works are cited by title of the work (in italics), book number (in Roman numerals), and chapter number (in Arabic numerals).
    5. Passages from St. Thomas's (or "Aquinas's," but never "St.Aquinas's") Summa are cited to Question 91 and article number (1 to 6) only.
    6. Passages from Hobbes's Leviathan are cited by chapter number.
    7. Passages from Locke's Second Treatise of Government are cited by either section or paragraph number.
    8. Passages from Rousseau's Discourse on the Origin of Inequality are cited by part number (Roman numerals) and paragraph number (Arabic numerals); passages from his Social Contract are cited by book number (in Roman numerals) and chapter number (in Arabic numerals).
    9. Passages from Machiavelli's Prince, chapter 15, 17, and 25, are cited to, well, Machiavelli, The Prince, ch. 15 (or ch. 17, or ch. 25.

    1Walter Lippmann, The Public Philosophy, 107.

    2Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France, 64.

    3Aristotle, Politics, I.1.

    4Aquinas, Question 91, Article 3.

    5David Hume, "Of the Origin of Government."

    6Ibid. [This is a reference to exactly the same work cited in the immediately preceding footnote.]

    7Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, II.23.

    8Ibid., II.33. [This is a reference to a previously cited work, but a different paragraph.]

    9Politics, I.1. [This is a reference to a previously cited work by Aristotle, but since two different works by Aristotle have been cited supra, you must indicate which of the two works you are referring to.]

    10John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, par. 13.

    At least five references are required.

    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. Each footnote itself is punctuated with a final period. Use Ibid. as appropriate. Refer back to the Lippmann essay. The method of notation in that essay is very similar to the Chicago Style method that I am asking you to use. It isn't difficult.

    The other punctuation to be mastered at this time is the introduction of quotes. If you introduce them using the word "that" (what Turabian calls run-in quotes), 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!

    Assignments for the Week of March 16th:

    Don't forget to sign up to meet with me about your papers. Bring your paper with you. I will post a sign-up sheet for the week of March 16th. The next paper will be due next week, and if you do not meet with me by the end of this week, you will lose 2 points from your final semester grade. This is for new students only.

    For Friday, please read Lippmann, chapter 8. We will go over chapters 7 and 8 with questions on each subsection of the chapters. You must be prepared to answer.

    For Tuesday, we'll pick up where we left off: review chapters 6 and 7 of Lippmann, which were assigned last time. The new reading for Tuesday is these excerpts from Edmund Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France. Class discussion will focus on Lippmann chapter 7 and the Burke reading. Note Lippmann on "Jacobinism" (what is it?), "Leninism" (what is it?), and particularly Jacobin education. Does it sound familiar? Note what Burke says about natural rights and about the social contract. He takes these common, accepted political terms of the eighteenth century and pours new meaning into them: new wine into old wineskins. His conceptions of natural rights and the social contract are significantly different from Locke's and the other social contract theorists. How?

    We will have to make adjustments to the schedule of readings and the schedule of papers and exams because of the earlier weather-related problems. I anticipate a class or two fewer on Lippmann and on the ideologies readings.

    For Friday, please read chapter 8 of Lippmann.

    Assignments for the Week of March 2d:

    We'll keep it light for Friday, if we meet at all: please read chapters 6 and 7 of The Public Philosophy.

    Don't forget to sign up to discuss your paper; there's a sign-up sheet on my door for this Friday.

    For those of you who are Korea-bound, have a good, safe trip!

    The reading assignment for Tuesday is (1) the two chapters from Bernays's Propaganda (extra copies are in the rack on my office door) and (2) the essay by David Hume "Of the Origin of Government" (not the excerpt from "Of the Original Contract"). Read both of these in light of the first five chapters of Lippmann, which shall be the primary basis of class discussion: I will continue to ask questions based on the subtitles, and I will call on people by name, so be ready.

    I have a sign-up sheet on my door for appointments to discuss the papers I just returned to you. If you have not met with me last semester to discuss your first paper, you must do so this semester. Pick a time this week or when we return from Break. Bring your paper with you.

    Assignments for the Week of February 23d:

    For Friday, read chapters 3, 4, and 5 of The Public Philosophy. I will ask questions based on the subtitles of the chapters. Since we did not cover chapter 2 in class, we will begin there. For example, "What does Lippmann say is significant about public opinion in time of war?" "What does he mean by "the compulsion to make mistakes?" What mistakes?" "What pattern of mistakes does Lippmann discern?" And so on. David Hume's essays for next Tuesday.

    We now turn to Walter Lippmann's Public Philosophy, a favorite of students over the past twenty years. It will be our main text, but we will supplement it with other readings. For Tuesday, please read chapters 1 & 2 of the Public Philosophy. Note when he wrote the book and the historical circumstances in which he lived. Is his perspective American or European? Paul Roazen's "Introduction" is very good. Read it now or later this week. You might also check out Lippmann's bio on the Web. We're going to have to get to know this guy.

    Assignments for the Week of February 16th:

    Mid-Term Friday. Bring your student ID number; do not put your name on the bluebook. (I will supply the bluebooks.) Bring blue or black pens: no pencils. I will not attempt to read bluebook essays that are written in pencil—you will fail the test.

    The exam will consist of three or four essay questions covering all of the material assigned thus far. Each question will focus on some of the assigned readings. There will definitely be a question on Rousseau's Discourse, a question comparing the three social contract formulas that we have been discussing, and a question or two on the issue of authority: the philosophers' answers to the question "Who gives you—who gives the government—the right to tell me what to do?" You should be aware of the basic distinction between coercion and authority that we repeated often in class. As always, your answers should reflect familiarity with and details from the readings rather than from the class discussions. Do not use examples from the class lectures: use examples and details from the readings.

    One or two of the questions will also have an identification component that you will complete right on the test sheet. I will give you quotes from the assigned readings that are characteristic of the thought of Aristotle, Aquinas, and so on (no identifications from the ancients described by Jacobsen and Wilson) and you must identify the author of the quote, the title of the work in which it appeared, and perhaps some other aspect of the quote. These identifications are only worth a couple of bonus or penalty points, so don't get too excited about them, but the bonus or penalty points can affect your grade a little, so don't ignore them.

    The exam will or may cover all of the assigned readings thus far in the course.

    Assignments for the Class of February 13th:

    As I indicated in the email that I sent to all of you on Monday, we will simply move the assignment and the exam back one class. The assignment for Friday is listed below; the mid-term will be held on Tuesday. Please come to class tomorrow prepared to discuss Locke, or I will only discuss the exam and cancel the rest of the class as I did with Rousseau. This course is a discussion of the assigned readings, not a series of lectures explaining to you what you should have just read.

    Please read sections or paragraphs (�� or ��) 1-14, 87-89, 95-99, 123-131 of John Locke's Second Treatise of Government, available by link on my main webpage. Pay close attention to his formulation of the social contract and compare and contrast it to the formulas of Hobbes and Rousseau. (Locke's own historical myth can be found in �� 25-51, his chapter "On Property" of the Second Treatise, if you are interested. It's another variant of the primitive communism myth. Marx like it.)

    Assignments for the Week of February 3d:

    The general schedule for the next three classes is as follows: Tuesday, Rousseau; Friday, Hobbes (Leviathan, chapters 14, 16, & 17) and the first paper; Tuesday, Locke (Second Treatise, sections or paragraphs (�� or ��) 1-14, 87-89, 95-99, 123-131. Friday the 13th (Whoa! bet you didn't see that one coming) is the exam. The focus of the next three class is the three versions of the social contract by Rousseau, Hobbes, and Locke. The question to keep your eye on is the question of authority: "What gives you the right to tell me what to do?"

    The paper and the Hobbes assignment (chapters 14, 16, 17 of Leviathan) are due on Friday. (We will also finish Rousseau's theory on Friday.) Based on the limited progress that we made in class on Rousseau, I strongly recommend that you focus on Hobbes and one of the authors that we already completed: Aristotle, St. Thomas, Jacobsen or Wilson (or both Jacobsen and Wilson). Rousseau's theory of authority is found in The Social Contract, not the Discourse; thus, we have not yet studied Rousseau's answer to the question of the basis of governmental authority or "Who gives you the right to tell me what to do." It is much trickier than Hobbes's answer, which you will find in chapters 14, 16, and 17.

    For Tuesday, please read Part II of Rousseau's Discourse on the Origin of Inequality and the sections of The Social Contract linked here, and please review the first part of the Discourse that was assigned for Friday, January 30th. In Part II, pay particular attention to paragraphs (the paragraphs are numbered in brackets) 1 to 21, 24 to 27, 35 to 40, 50 to 52, and 60 to 63 (it's simpler just to read it straight through). Use the study questions on the Discourse linked on the main webpage immediately below the link to the Discourse on the Origin of Inequality under the Western Political Concepts I & II Readings. I plan to cover the Rousseau material on Tuesday using questions and answers (I question, you answer). If you all read the assignment and give me some help on Tuesday, we will get through this; if not, not.

    POL 211 First Paper

    Topic: Compare and contrast Hobbes's conception of political authority to the conception of one of the other authors or ancient civilizations that we have studied this semester.

    Simply explain, in three or four sentences each, how (1) Hobbes and (2) the other author(s) of your choice derive political authority from God, nature (or the cosmos), or man. That's it. The assigned readings focused precisely on this subject. See the email I sent to each of you Thursday morning for a bit more clarification.

    Assignments for the Week of January 27th:

    An introduction to Jean-Jacques Rousseau (A.D. 1712-1778) and the first long reading assignment of the semester: his Discourse on the Origin of Inequality. The Discourse is divided into a number of sections: the Dedication or epistle dedicatory; the Preface (with fifteen numbered paragraphs); the Dissertation itself with seven numbered, introductory paragraphs; the First Part, with fifty-three numbered paragraphs and notes; the Second Part, with sixty-four numbered paragraphs and notes; and the Appendix. In addition, there are study questions on the Discourse linked on the main webpage immediately below the link to the Discourse on the Origin of Inequality under the Western Political Concepts I & II Readings. I want you to read the Preface, the introductory paragraphs of the Dissertation, and Part One of the Dissertation. Please use the study questins to help you follow Rousseau's argument.

    If the Discourse were straight, discursive philosophical reasoning, this would be a very long assignment, but you will find that the Discourse is less a philosophical essay than it is a story of the history of mankind: a historical myth. It reads very quickly. Indeed, it reads so easily that the study questions will force you to focus on some important parts of the myth that might pass by unnoticed. And, don't forget to read MAchiavelli, Prince, chapter 25.

    Two reading assignments for Tuesday: (1) please read the material by Hobbes, Bacon, and Descartes on "Modern Philosophers' Rejections of Classical Philosophy," available via a link on the main millerpolitics.com webpage under the green quote from Michael Crichton's Jurassic Park. (BTW, that sci-fi story by Isaac Asimov, The Feeling of Power, is worth your while.) (2) Please read these excerpts from Machiavelli and Hobbes. Again, look for evidence of the fundamental philosophical conceptions (ontology, epistemology, and so on) that are stated or impled in the readings as well as the implications of the readings for the question of authority: "Who gives you the right to tell me what to do?" Be sure to have a dictionary handy to look up any words that you may not recognize: this is absolutely essential if you are to beome an educated individual.

    I will discuss the upcoming first one-page paper, as well. Don't forget the workshop on basic writing skills in Ireton on Wednesday afternoon at 4:15. No cost or obligation! Stop by if you feel the need. (Your grades on past written work may indicate whether you should feel the need.)

    Assignments for the Week of January 20th:

    Please read these excerpts from Aristotle and St. Thomas in order to get an idea of the Classical and Classical-Christian approach to political theory. As you read through the material, try to identify the passages and statements that reflect ontological, epistemological, anthropological, ethical, and political conceptions. If one views the universe or reality as having no overall purpose or design, one has an "acosmic" conception of cosmology and ontology. If one views the universe and reality as possessing an overall purpose, one has a "teleological" conception of cosmology and reality. Is Aristotle's view acosmic or teleological?

    For Friday, please read the handout on ancient Egyptian and Mesopotamian societies from the book Before Philosophy (the same book that the essay on "Myth and Reality" by Henri and H.A. Frankfort appeared in).

    The excerpts from St. Thomas's Summa Theologica illustrate the scholastic method of philosophic exposition or demonstration.

    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. The whole treatise is divided up into parts, which are further divided into sub-parts. Thus, the so-called "Treatise on Law" is found in the "First Part of the Second Part" (the Prima Secundae) of the Summa. Thomas then divides up the subjects into numbered Questions. Each numbered question is further divided up into Articles, which are 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. We focus here on the "I answer that" paragraphs.

    According to Aquinas, what is the difference between natural law and divine law? What is the purpose of human law? (Since human law is man-made law or legislation, this question is another way of asking what the purpose of government is.) What is the standard by which human law should be evaluated? (This is another way of asking what the basis or source of political-legal authority is.)

    For Friday, January 16, please read the article "Introduction to Political Theory," which is linked directly below on the main webpage.

    Try to write definitions of the following terms: "ontology," "epistemology," "anthropology—empirical and philosophical," "ethics," "politics," "Classical tradition," "Classical-Christian tradition," "Epicurean tradition," and "esoteric tradition" based on the article. This will be the basis of our discussion on Friday.

    Assignments for Western Political Concepts II, Spring Semester, 2015

    Welcome to the course! This semester, we will begin with a survey of "modern" political theory as reflected in Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau and some non-modern political thought as well. We will then turn to an extended study of Walter Lippmann's book, The Public Philosophy (or, Essays in the Public Philosophy), a famous twentieth century work by one of the greatest twentienth century journalists. We finish the semester with a study of political ideology, a form of political thought that might be considered counterfeit political theory. Be sure to get the weekly and daily assignments here: I do not use Blackboard at all.

    The material below is from previous semesters of POL 210 and 211. You may want to take a look before I delete some of it.

    Two readings from St. Augustine and one from St. Thomas:

    1. City of God Book VII.32
    2. On the Free Choice of the Will, pp. 38-49 of the Pontifex translation
    3. St. Thomas Aquinas: Question 91, Part 4 on "divine law."
    You should review City of God, Book XIX, chapters 12 & 13, which were assigned when we studied ontology, also. Compare Augustine's Book VII.32 of City of God to Aquinas, Question 91, Part 4. What is the common theme? Which law must we observe in order to achieve salvation? Also compare Augustine's discussion of natural and eternal law to Aquinas's in Question 91, Parts 1 & 2 (I mean, really, while you are reading Question 91, you might at least take a peek at parts 1 & 2).

    I prepared a version of Aristotle's Book II of the Nicomachean Ethics, which we discussed on Tuesday, for you that has more explanatory notes.

    I will also discuss the last one-page paper assignment on Friday.

    For Tuesday, please read the remaining chapters of Book Two of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics that are indicated on the Ethics Readings assignment page. You will recall that the first three chapters of Book II were already assigned for Friday.

    A Reminder: If you have room on your Spring schedule, please add HU 202 or POL 388 to prevent those courses from being prematurely cancelled because of low enrollments. The Administration wants all courses to enroll at least ten students. By adding either or both of those courses now, they will not be cancelled, and you can easily drop them from your schedule once the Spring semester begins. Thank you.

    For the Week of November 10th:

    On Friday, we will discuss the previously assigned excerpts from chapters 14 and 15 of Leviathan and two new readings: (1) chapter 20 (XX) of John Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding, and (2) Book II, chapters 1, 2, & 3 of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics. Links to both are available on the Ethics Readings page.

    I hope the exam was not too bad. I followed the guidelines below very closely in constructing the questions.

    Let's put the exam behind us and look forward to the end—the goal or purpose—of the course: the theory of politics. To get there, we need to consider questions of authority and obligation; that is, we must consider ethics. We will find that the close relationship between ethical and political theory matches the close relationship between the three conceptions we already studied: ontology, epistemology, and anthropology.

    For Tuesday, I'll let you take a breather: go to the link on Ethics Readings (below Anthropology Readings) and read (1) Epicurus's Principal Doctrines (or Principal Principles, P2, if you are into that) and (2) Hobbes's first two natural laws, which he explains in the opening paragraphs of chapter 14 of Leviathan. Short assignment.

    For the Week of November 3d:

    The mid-term will be in the same format as the first mid-term: three essay questions, one or two preceded by passages to identify. Only the material assigned since the first mid-term is covered on the exam, although your understanding of the five fundamental conceptions and the identification of the philoosphical tradition that were explained in the "Introduction to Political Theory" are assumed here and thoughout the course. You may, of course, make references to the earlier assignments to supplement your essays.

    On the quotation identifications (which only amount to a few points per exam), you should know the author and title of the work in which they appear, the fundamental conception (epistemology or anthropology) that the quotes discuss, and the philosophical traditions they reflect. Some of St. Augustine's writings appeared in collections of excerpts from different works; you do not have to know the precise work—City of God, Confessions, and so on—in which the quote appears. Just follow the directions on the exam. Again, the identifications are worth only a few points, plus or minus, but they set the stage for the essay that follows, so you should particularly be able to recognize the conception and the tradition that the quotations reflect. The passages to be identified will clearly reflect characteristic ideas of their tradition; the will not be obscure.

    For the essays, all will be based on comparison-contrast. You should be able to compare the epistemologies of the four traditions to one another. Epistemology explores what we can know and how we can know it. The key ideas here are "reason" and "faith" (or revelation). "Reason" does not mean the same thing for the various writers that we have studied. What conception of reason is characteristic of each tradition? Be able to contrast the different conceptions. According to each tradition, is all knowledge rational, that is, obtainable by reason? What is? What is not? If something is not knowable by reason, how else might it be known? You can see how epistemology is tied here to ontology—the study of what really exists—but this exam will not focus on ontology.

    You will also be asked to compare and contrast the different anthropologies of the traditions that we study. You should have a clear idea of the distinction between empirical and philosophical anthropology; go back and review these concepts in the "Introduction to Political Theory" that was assigned the first week of the semester. You should be able to compare and contrast the empirical anthropologies, but especially the philosophical anthropologies of the four traditions. What is the essential difference between the views of the nature of man in the four traditions—the five traditions if we distinguish between the Gnostic and the Hermetic views that we discussed on Tuesday. Key ideas here are what each tradition understands to be "happiness" and what each tradition asserts is the highest human potential.

    Finally, how is the epistemology of each tradition tied to that tradition's philosophical anthropology? Since philosophical anthropology is another term for the ontology of man, you see again how everything that we read this semester is tied closely together. How, for example, does the Epicurean epistemology determine the Epicurean conception of the fundamental nature of man? How do the epistemologies of the other traditions determine their conception of human nature?

    As always, I am looking for evidence in your essays that you have read the assigned materials. That is more important than spitting back to me ideas and examples that were brought up in class to explain the readings. Focus on the readings. If you have not yet read an assignment or if you had particular trouble with the assignment the first time you read it, your study time is best spent going back over the readings. Studying with classmates is good—I recommend it!—but don't let it take away from your time with the readings.

    Remember: blue or black pens; student ID numbers; all belongings at the side of the classroom.

    The last of the readings on anthropology from the "Anthropology Readings" page are the two ancient documents: the Gnostic "In Quest of the Priceless Pearl," and the Hermetic or Hermetistic document Poemandres. Like the earlier Apocryphon of John, these are not essays or "discursive" writings, but rather are myths. Use the questions accompanying the writings to help you through them. Mid-term on Friday. You may want to read Jonas's "Abstract of the Main Gnostic Tenets," which is linked at the bottom of the Anthropology Readings page. Brings a lot together regarding the ancient Gnostic religion.

    For the Week of October 20th:

    Another good class discussion. I must make sure that we cover most of the assigned reading each class, however, so I may cut your questions short until the reading is discussed.

    We will spend two classes on classical anthropology: one on Plato and one on Aristotle. For Friday, please read the excerpts from Plato's Republic listed on the Anthropology Readings page. I will assign the Aristotle readings for next Tuesday. The St. Augustine excerpts on anthropology for next Friday. Mid-term on November 7th.

    We begin the study of political anthropology. Please read the passages from the Epicurean authors Lucretius and Hobbes on the Anthropology Readings page of the "Readings for Western Political Concepts I (Fall 2014)" link. We will also have some more time to finish Augustine's epistemology. Bring your questions: last class was great!

    For the Class of October 17th:

    The paper topic asks you to compare and contrast St. Augustine's epistemology with Classical epistemology. The reading assignment is the "set of excerpts from St. Augustine's Confessions, City of God, and his early dialogue On Free Choice of the Will," which as usual can be found on the Epistemology Readings page with all of the other assigned reading links.

    POL 210 Second Paper: "What is different about St. Augustine's view of the highest knowledge and how people achieve it and the Classical understanding of the highest knowledge and how people achieve it?"

    Rules/Guidelines for One-Page Papers.

    1. The paper must, of course, be typed and submitted as a hard copy. Nothing handwritten or emailed will be accepted.
    2. The only sources to be used are the assigned readings—no other primary or secondary materials. (Keep it simple: use only what I specifically assigned.)
    3. The absolute limit is one page. I will not read anything that is not on that one page. Use a twelve point font, preferably Times New Roman, Univers, Garamond, or CG Times, black ink, double-spaced, and the default page margins: typically one inch all around. (Except for the blue ink paper, you all did this very well.)
    4. A title page is required. To the one page paper, attach a title page like the one I show you in class. Use only your Marymount Student I.D. number—NOT YOUR NAME. YOUR NAME SHOULD NOT APPEAR ANYWHERE ON THE TITLE PAGE OR ANYPLACE ELSE ON THE PAPER. I WANT COMPLETE ANONYMITY. If you violate this anonymity rule, I will not accept the paper and you will receive a zero. (Again, you all passed with flying colors!)
    5. Use the footnote format that I explain below and in class. (Room for improvement here; use "Ibid." this time.)
    6. Do not begin the paper with a restatement of the topic. You do not have enough space for wasted words, so get right into a thesis statement and your supporting statements.
    7. The deadline is the beginning of class on Friday, October 17th. This means you must come to class: do not put it in the rack on my office door. Do not try to give it to me after class. Emailed papers by 11:00am meet the deadline, but you then must give me a hard copy ASAP.
    8. I will ratchet up the grading of the papers: (1) no grade on the first paper/writing sample, (2) 50-50 writing-content on this second paper so a paper with lousy writing but good content (or vice-versa) will pass, and (3) the writing and content counted together on the third paper so a paper with more than three errors will fail regardless of content.

    Footnotes

    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 five possible sources for you to cite: (1) The passages from St. Augustine's three works are to be cited by book number (Roman numeral), chapter number, and the paragraph number, if applicable, as illustrated in the excerpts that I prepared. (2) Passages from Aristotle are to book title Nicomachean Ethics, book number, and part/chapter/section number, depending on the edition of Aristotle that you use. Book numbers in Roman numerals; chapter numbers in Arabic numerals in both these cases, just like in the linked text. (3) Passages in Plato's Republic are to Stephanus Numbers, which have been integrated into the excerpt that we use in class. You must also use Ibid. (abbreviation of Latin term for "in the same place") to indicate that a footnote source is identical to the previous footnote source. See the examples below.

    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. Each footnote itself is punctuated with a final period. Here are sample footnotes for St. Augustine, Aristotle, and Plato:

    1Plato, Republic (Trans. Jowett), 507a. (Cite to the closest preceding Stephanus number in the Plato excerpts.)

    2St. Augustine, On Free Choice of the Will (Trans. Benjamin and Hackstaff), I.2.11.

    3Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics (Trans. Ross), VI.3.

    4Ibid. (A reference to the exact same source—author, title, the location in the text—in the very next footnote. "Ibid." refers back to the source in the previous footnote.)

    5Ibid., VI.5. (A reference to the exact same source, Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, but to a different part of that source, VI.5 instead of the earlier VI.3.)

    6Plato, 508a. (A subsequent reference to a source that you cited earlier. You should not repeat all of the information that was in your first citation. Since only one Plato source was cited, simply citing "Plato" or "Republic" will clearly indicate to the reader which earlier source you are referring to. You must include the section of the work.)

    7St. Augustine, Confessions (Trans. Pilkington), V.5.8. (Citing a second source from St. Augustine, different from On Free Choice of the Will.)

    8On Free Choice of the Will, I.6.42. (No need to indicate Augustine is the author here; you already cited the author and title in a previous footnote; here, all you need is a distinctive reference to indicate which previously cited book of Augustine you are referring to.)

    9Ibid., II.2.17-19 (A reference to a different location within the immediately preceding cited source.)

    Quotations

    The other punctuation to be mastered at this time is the introduction of quotes. If you introduce them using the word "that" (what Turabian calls run-in quotes), 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 the Week of October 6th:

    For Friday, please read the handout excerpt by Han Jonas on the Gnostic idea of "gnosis" and Book VI, chapter 2 of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, which is only a couple of paragraphs. A couple of extra copies of the Jonas article are in the rack on my office door. We will finish discussing Aristotle's intellectual virtues, as well. The paper, which is due Friday the 17th—NOT THIS FRIDAY—will ask you to compare Classical-Christian epistemology (the reading assignment for next Friday) with Classical epistemology, which we have been studying this week and last.

    Last day to have an appointment to discuss your paper is Friday, October 10: don't lose the two points.

    We will finish talking about Plato with a discussion of his Myth or Parable of the Cave and then discuss Aristotle's "intellectual virtues. For Tuesday, please go to the Epistemology Readings page and read Book VI, chapters 3 to 8, of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics. Compare this to Plato's divided line and to Hobbes's epistemology. Hobbes also has a chapter in Leviathan on the intellectual virtues that you might want to take a look at.

    The Outline of Mid-term Essays is available here.

    Maureen Dour of CTL asked that I make this announcement to the class:

    "A volunteer note-taker is needed for this class, to assist a classmate who has a disability. This is an easy job that only requires the note-taker to scan and upload their notes within 24 hours after class. Additionally, it is an opportunity to give back to others and it looks great on a resume. The note-taker and the requesting student can each decide whether or not they wish to be openly identified, as a personal choice.

    Anyone who is interested in becoming a volunteer note-taker should visit Maureen Dour in Rowley G105 or e-mail testing@marymount.edu. Lastly, as a �Thank You� for their awesome efforts, all note-takers will receive a $100 gift card from Student Access Services at the end of the semester!"

    This is a really good thing to do. Please contact Maureen if you are interested.

    For the Week of September 30th:

    On Friday, we will (1) complete the discussion of Hobbes, particularly chapters four and five, and (2) study Plato's divided line example and the Myth of the Cave. The excerpt from Plato's Republic to read is linked on the Epistemology Readings page of the "Readings for Western Political Concepts I (Fall 2014)" link, directly below this link. We will use the "Study Questions" to work through the material.

    On Tuesday, we will look at the epistemology of another Epicurean, the Seventeenth Century writer Thomas Hobbes. Please read Leviathan chapters 1 to 5 and the excerpts from chapter 46, which are available on the "Epistemology Readings" link that you used for the Lucretius assignment for the last class. We will use the Study Questions on Hobbes's Leviathan for the class discussion (and possibly a quiz). The study questions are also available on the main web page directly below the link for "Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan (ebooks@Adelaide)" in the Western Political Concepts I & II Readings section.

    A signup sheet for this week is on my office door. Pick a time. Bring your paper with you. It is worth two points of your final grade just to come in a review your paper. Don't forget to sign up!

    I should have your exams graded by Friday.

    For the Week of September 23d:

    On Friday we begin a study of epistemology. Go to the "Readings for Western Political Concepts I (Fall 2014)" link right below this link, click on Epistemology Readings, and (1) review the earlier "Myth and Reality" essay to answer the questions about the ancients, and (2) read the assigned passages from Lucretius.

    Mid-Term on Tuesday. As explained in class, the mid-term will consist of three essay questions, one or two of which will begin with a series of quotations that you must identify and that will identify the sources to be used in writing that (or those) particular question. I will give you a sample identification question below (if I can figure out how to format it).

    In preparing for the exam, you are responsible for all of the materials that have been assigned in the semester so far. All of the readings focused on cosmology or ontology (or both), so that is the only fundamental conception that you must worry about: nothing on epistemology, anthropology, and so on will be on the exam. Stay away from that stuff. The readings also reflected the ideas of the different philosophical or historical "traditions" upon which the course is based: the Epicurean, the Classical, the Classical-Christian, and the esoteric. The first readings by Eliade and the Frankforts also discussed the cosmology and ontology of "pre-philosophic" or "ancient" thought, which we will consider one of the traditions for the purpose of this exam. Best way to study for the exam is to re-read as much of the assigned material as you can, focusing on what you had trouble understanding the first time now that we have discussed the material in class.

    The very first assignment, the essay "Introduction to Political Theory," will not be the subject of any of the exam questions and should not be discussed or quoted in any of your essays, but the essay does explain what cosmology and ontology are and what the various philosophic traditions include. Knowledge of this information from the "Introduction to Political Theory" is essential for every exam question in this course. Go back and review the discussion of cosmology and ontology and the descriptions of the philosophic traditions that are presented in the first part of the "Introduction to Political Theory."

    Each essay will essentially be a comparison-contrast question focusing on two or three of the traditions. None of the questions asks you to discuss all five traditions and all the readings: each question is much narrower than that. Read each question closely and address it directly.

    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 from the readings. 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 historical traditions are.

    Sample Identification Question:

    1. "And I asked to know it, and he said to me, "The Monad is a monarchy with nothing above it. It is he who exists as God and Father of everything, the invisible One who is above everything, who exists as incorruption, which is in the pure light into which no eye can look."

    __Place the author's name on this line.__ __Place the Title of the Work on this line__ ___Place the name of the tradition to which this work belongs on this line___

    (As I said above, I am having trouble formatiing this in HTML for this webpage: each space will be clearly labeled on the exam.)

    If the name of the author or the title is unknown to scholars, simply write "Unknown" on the line. If the quote is from one of the Stoic excerpts, write "Stoic" on both the author and title lines.

    If this were on the exam, there would be three or four of this-type of quotation to be identified. There would then be an essay question that would compare and contrast some common idea of the three traditions identified in the quotation questions. Thus, if one of the quotes to be identified was Epicurean, one Gnostic, and one Christian, the essay question would ask you to compare some common subject of the Epicurean, Gnostic, and Christian traditions. You would not say anything in the essay about the Classical or ancient traditions. The essay will not ask you to simply go over the content of the quotations: the quotations only serve to identify the traditions and the subjects of the essays. The essays focus on the overall readings that were assigned, not just the quotes.

    For the Week of September 16th:

    Please read the handout of Hans Jonas excerpts for Friday (extra copies are in the rack on my office door until Friday morning). The handout serves as a helpful review of Gnostic and Classical cosmology. Also, bring along your other assigned readings: there were parts of Lucretius, St. Augustine, and even the Stoics that we did not cover thoroughly and that you may have questions about. I want to tie up loose ends before the mid-term on Tuesday the 23d.

    Hans Jonas also provides some historical background to the Hellenistic or ecumenical period in which Gnosticism, Stoicism, Epicureanism, and Christianity attracted many followers in the ancient Roman world. Try to identify the argument that Jonas is making. What is the historical pattern of "position, revaluation, reaction" that Jonas describes?

    I will also give you a brief quiz to prepare you for the identification-type questions on the exam. You should know the authors of each of the assigned readings, the titles of the works that we read, and the philosophic traditions that each author and reading belongs to. You do not have to identify the particular Stoic authors—Cicero, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius—and their works: simply identify them all as "Stoics" (although Cicero, perhaps, was not) and the works as "cosmology." I will brief you on the format for the mid-term and how to organize your studying.

    For the Week of September 9th:

    Two assignments for Friday: (1) please read Aristotle's discussion of the "four causes," found in the Physics, Parts 3, 7, and 8 ONLY, and (2) the cosmology of Classical-Christianity found in these excerpts from St. Augustine and St. Thomas. Focus on the excerpts from St. Augustine; we will look at the excerpt from St. Thomas in class.

    The four causes of Aristotle are usually referred to as the material cause, the formal cause, the efficient cause, and the final cause, in that order. As you read the material in the Physics, match up his discussions and definitions to these titles: what does he mean by the material cause? the formal cause? and so on. According to Aristotle, do these causes apply to natural as well as to man-made things ("artifacts")? Does every thing that exists have a purpose? Does nothing have a purpose? Do only artifacts have a purpose?

    How does the understanding of the universe by St. Augustine and St. Thomas (and orthodox Jews and Muslims, as well) reflect the Classical understanding of the Stoics and Aristotle? Are they different in any way? How?

    Two assignments for Tuesday: (1) please read the excerpts from Cicero, Marcus Aurelius, and Epictetus (not Aristotle) on Stoic (Classical) cosmology, and (2) hand in the one-page paper that I described in class. As I indicated in class, this first paper is more of a writing sample than a test of your understanding of cosmology. Make a good faith effort (proofread, of course), follow the rules, and you will receive full credit. If I do not think you gave the paper a good effort, you will not get credit. Please bring your Lucretius text to class with you.

    You must compare the Stoic-Classical cosmology that you read for Tuesday with either the Epicurean cosmology that we discussed on Friday or the ancient, mytho-poeic cosmology that we discussed on Tuesday. To give your paper a sharper focus, you may want to look specifically at whether the cosmologies you select maintain that God/the gods created the world, whether there is a natural order or divine purpose to the world, whether there is a divine reality distinct from profane or natural or human reality in the world. If you can distinguish in your paper between the views on cosmology, the nature of the universe in which we live, and ontology, the nature of reality in general, that would be good, but it is not yet necessary. In grading the quizzes, I got the impression that many of you did not read (or read closely) the assigned material in BooK Two ("II") of Lucretius's poem. Much of Book I set up the premises upon which the important cosmological statements of Book II depend. Much of what Cicero and the Stoics say directly contrasts with the assigned material in Book II of Lucretius.

    PLEASE read all of the instructions below. 90% of the problems with student papers are mistakes that violate the directions I set out below. Everything you need to know about quoting material and citing material is explained below. You should paraphrase more than you quote sources, but remember that you must cite a source (footnote) for something that you paraphrase from or attribute to one of your sources just the same as if you quoted the source. We'll work on it this semester. Now, please read the following:

    POL 210 First Paper: The topic for the first one-page paper is a comparison-contrast of the Classical cosmology or ontology assigned for Tuesday with either the Epicurean view of Lucretius or the ancient view described by Eliade and the Frankforts. You must have at least four footnotes to the texts that you use. The whole purpose of a footnote reference is to permit and require the writer to identify the precise passages in the original material that the writer is relying on for his assertions and interpretations. The short length of the paper suggests that you structure your comparison into two substantive paragraphs—one on the classical tradition and one on either the Epicurean or the ancient—and either a short introductory statement of the precise point you wish to make (your thesis) or a short conclusion summarizing the point that you just made.

    Rules/Guidelines for One-Page Papers.

    1. The paper must, of course, be typed and submitted as a hard copy. Nothing handwritten or emailed will be accepted.
    2. The only sources to be used are the assigned readings—no other primary or secondary materials.
    3. The absolute limit is one page. I will not read anything that is not on that one page. Use a twelve point font, preferably Times New Roman, Univers, Garamond, or CG Times, black ink, double-spaced, and the default page margins: typically one inch all around.
    4. A title page is required. To the one page paper, attach a title page like the one I show you in class. Use only your Marymount Student I.D. number—NOT YOUR NAME. YOUR NAME SHOULD NOT APPEAR ANYWHERE ON THE TITLE PAGE OR ANYPLACE ELSE ON THE PAPER. I WANT COMPLETE ANONYMITY. If you violate this anonymity rule, I will not accept the paper and you will receive a zero.
    5. Use the footnote format that I explain below and in class.
    6. Do not begin the paper with a restatement of the topic. You do not have enough space for wasted words, so get right into a thesis statement and your supporting statements.
    7. The deadline is the beginning of class on Tuesday, September 9th. This means you must come to class: do not put it in the rack on my office door. Do not try to give it to me after class.
    8. I will ratchet up the grading of the papers: (1) no grade on this first paper/writing sample, (2) 50-50 writing-content on the second paper so a paper with lousy writng but good content (or vice-versa) will pass, and (3) the writing and content counted together on the third paper so a paper with more than three errors will fail regardless of content.

    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 Eliade and the Frankforts are cited by page number. (3) Passages from Cicero, Epictetus, or Marcus Aurelius are to book and part/chapter/section number. Book numbers in Roman numerals; chapter numbers in Arabic numerals in both these cases, just like in the linked text.

    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 the Frankforts, Eliade, Lucretius, Cicero, and Epictetus:

    1Henri and H.A. Frankfort, "Myth and Reality," in Before Philosophy, 18.

    2Mircea Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane, 8.

    3Lucretius, On the Nature of the Universe, I.350.

    4Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods, VII.6.

    5Ibid. (A reference to the exact same source—author, title, the location in the text—in the very next footnote. "Ibid." refers back to the source in the previous footnote.)

    6Lucretius, III.135. (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.)

    7Epictetus, Discourses, V.13. (new source)

    The other punctuation to be mastered at this time is the introduction of quotes. If you introduce them using the word "that" (what Turabian calls run-in quotes), 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 the Week of September 2d:

    For Friday, please read Lucretius, On the Nature of the Universe: Book One, lines 146 to 634, lines 921 to 1113, and Book Two, lines 62 to 477. The approximate line numbers are listed in the margins of the book. Remember,you must buy and use the Latham and Godwin prose translation and bring it with you to class. No book in class = unexcused absence. If you have been late in buying a copy of the Latham-Godwin translation, ask to borrow the book from a classmate so that you may make copies of the assigned pages.

    As you read Lucretius, keep the five fundamental conceptions of philosophy in mind: what concept(s) is (are) being discussed in the text? (Review the essay on "Introduction to Political Theory" to get a firm idea of the five conceptions.) What is the substance of Lucretius's idea here? In other words, if Lucretius is discussing cosmology here, what is his concept or idea of the cosmos?

    Also keep the Eliade and Frankforts excerpts in mind. What makes up the primitive understanding of reality, according to Eliade? according to the Frankforts? What are Eliade's basic ideas or concepts? How does Lucretius's understanding of the universe compare to and contrast with the understanding of primitive man, as according to Eliade?

    1. The pre-philosophic mythopoeic understanding of the cosmos.

    Please read the excerpts that I handed out from Before Philosophy (also titled The Intellectual Adventure of Ancient Man) by Henri Frankfort et al and from The Sacred and the Profane by Mircea Eliade.

    The two describe the mythopoeic ("myth-making") intellect of ancient man. The two readings are compatible, but each of them focuses on a different aspect of ancient culture. Which one focuses primarily on cosmology and ontology? Which on epistemology? What reasons can you give for your answers? On what do the two articles agree? Do you find any fundamental, irreconcilable disagreements between the two articles? What is a hierophany? a theophany? an epiphany? Extra copies of the handouts will always be in the rack on my office door, though I will usually remove them the day of class. You can't read the assigned material in the five minutes before class.

    Also keep the Eliade excerpt in mind. What makes up the primitive understanding of reality, according to Eliade? What are Eliade's basic ideas or concepts? How does Lucretius's understanding of the universe compare to and contrast with the understanding of primitive man, as according to Eliade?

    The readings for the course are also listed in the website linked immediately below this assignment page on my main website.

    Welcome to the Course!

    The assignment for Friday, August 29th, is the essay, "Introduction to Political Theory," a link for which is here and also under the heading "Western Political Concepts I & II Readings" on the main web page (the first link under the green quote from Jurassic Park). Jot down basic definitions for the five (or six or seven) fundamental conceptions and the four (or five) philosophic traditions that are discussed. Be ready to talk about them in class. This sets the agenda for the whole semester.

    Attendance and Make-up Exam Policies

    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.

    The 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. Ask yourself how each of the authors that we study answers these questions.

    As you review the material on epistemology, keep in mind several of the key terms that any epistemological discussion includes: reason and rationality (not "rationalization"!), faith, revelation, opinion or belief, and knowledge. "Reason" does not mean the same thing for each of the writers that we have studied. Remember, also, that all of the traditions—indeed, any intelligent individual—recognizes that people (and animals) can figure a lot of things out without the help of religious faith or abstract philosophical principles. You should be able to explain the different conceptions of reason or rationality that reflect the different traditions. What is the role of revelation and the role of faith in the epistemologies of the different traditions, if revelation and faith have any role at all in each tradition. Finally, what can we "know" through faith, through revelation, and particularly through the use of reason, according to each of the different traditions?

    Regarding anthropology, you should have a clear idea of the difference between empirical and philosophical anthrolopogy. Review the "Introduction to Political Theory" essay. Philosophical anthropology is basically the ontology of man, how man fits into the order of reality or the order of nature, depending on the kind of natural or cosmic order that each tradition avers. Several of the traditions maintain that the unique nature of man is tied to his ability to know certain things—that is, to epistemology—thus tying philosophical anthropology closely to epistemology. Know these connections.

    Philosophical anthropology is really a study of the ontology of man: the true nature of man. To understand Epicurean or Classical or Gnostic philosophical anthropology, you must remember Epicurean or Classical or Gnostic ontology/cosmology. It all ties together.

    You should see now how closely related epistemology is to anthropology and how closely both subjects are related to ontology. This coming month we will see the close connection between ethics and politics and these conceptions. All of the material in the course is cumulative.

    We will begin the last month of classes looking at ethics and politics. The whole purpose of the course is to let you see how these more familiar aspects of politics and social behavior are logical results of the fundamental conceptions that we have already studied: ontology, epistemology, and anthropology. You might get the feeling that we are rushing to a conclusion of the course. That is in part because we have labored over ideas and theories that were probably unfamiliar to you or that seemed unrelated to politics. Now, as we look at the more familiar ideas of ethics or morals and politics, you will see that a lot of the ideas naturally fit into the philosophical frameworks of the traditions that we have been studying. Our study of epistemology and anthropology has already pointed the way to certain ethical conclusions, for example. This is a good time to ask yourself which tradition you fit into or which tradition seems most true to you. If you have already identified yourself strongly with one tradition or another, you might be surprised to find which theory of ethics or politics logically follows from the philosophic framework that seems most true to you. It can be the occasion for some radical changes in your thinking.

    Iranian Gnostic Hymn of the Pearl. I also want you to review paragraphs 1-12, 18-21, and 33 from Pico della Mirandola's Oration on the Dignity of Man and chapter 6 of Hobbes's Leviathan, both of which were assigned earlier this semester. Pay particular attention to the last few paragraphs in chapter 6 where Hobbes discusses felicity (= happiness). The fact that the Pico della Mirandola and the Hobbes readings were earlier assigned as part of the study of epistemologies should indicate to you that all of the fundamental conceptions that we are studying—ontology, epistemology, anthropology, and so on—are inextricably related. To show those relationships—and, in particular, to show their relationships to the fundamental conception of politics—is what the course is all about.

    St. Augustine is representative of the Classical Judeo-Christian-Muslim (Abrahamic) tradition. Augustine's epistemology must account for the knowledge of God (the Yahweh of the Scriptures) and His divine qualities. Is rational thought sufficient? Is faith necessary? Does faith replace reason? Is faith a source of knowledge or only of belief?

    Exams

    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.

    First Mid-Term Exam Bring two blue or black ink pens and your student ID number.

    The exam will consist of three or four relatively specific essay questions about the readings that we have studied thus far—all of the readings since the beginning of the semester. All of the readings (except the intro essay) focused on ontology and cosmology and the philosophical traditions we have studied—the classical (Aristotle), the epicurean (Lucretius), the gnostic (John and the material written by Hans Jonas), and the Classical-Christian (St. Augustine). Reread the intro essay so that you are know what ontology and cosmology are and what the four traditions are that we are studying. For this first exam, we will include the writings about ancient or primitive man as a fifth "tradition," insofar as it is a fifth distinct approach to cosmology and ontology.

    At least two of the questions will begin with identifications of passages from the readings, so know the authors, titles, and what traditions the writings reflect or comment on. For example, Lucretius (be able to spell this stuff!) wrote On the Nature of the Universe, which reflected the epicurean tradition. Jonas wrote the Gnostic Religion, which commented on gnosticism. and so on.

    The questions contain a lot of comparison and contrast between and among the different writers and traditions. Time management is always a challenge. You must write three or four essays in seventy-five minutes. Each essay should be about three blue book pages long—no longer.

    Finally, because I believe that each of you should have exactly the same amount of material—oral and written—to prepare for each exam (if you were absent from a class, ask a classmate), I will not reply individually to any emailed or verbal questions prior to the exam. Don't ask. I won't tell. Read all of the materials carefully, using your class notes to help you interpret and understand, and you will do fine.

    Past POL 210 Assignments

    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?

    Epictetus Enchiridion, a short manual on practical ethics similar in form, though not necessarily in content, to the "Principal Doctrines" of Epicurus that we read last week.

    Epicurus's Principal Doctrines. Try to identify the numbers that deal specifically with ethics, as I have just defined it. Then, review the last couple of paragraphs of Hobbes's Leviathan, chapter 13 and his comments on what is just by nature (without a common power). Finally, please read chapters 14 & 15 of Leviathan. The link is on the main web page. What are these "laws of nature" that Hobbes is discussing? Are they ethical rules?

    Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book I Parts 4, 5, 7, 9, and St. Augustine, City of God, Book XIV.1, 2, 3, 4, 11, 28. Anthropology. Try to distinguish between the empirical and the philosophical anthropology in these pages.

    St. Augustine's City of God: Book VII.29-32; VIII.1-5; XIX.12-13. Epistemology.

    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 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?

    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.

    Past POL 210 assignments

    Cosmology and Ontology

    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 each line of the poem in the margins of the page in the Latham and Godwin Penguin edition that is in the bookstore. 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 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 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.

    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?

    We enter the wild world of Gnosticism with the Apocryphon of John. Now remember, we are looking at documents that contain ontological and cosmological discussions: what is the ontology of the author of the Apocryphon? What is the fantastic cosmology? and cosmogony? And who is this "Barbelo" person, anyway? What does she have to do with the world? or with Sophia? or Yaltabaoth? or you, for that matter?

    Ignoring the details for a moment, what is distinctively different about the Gnostic conception of the cosmos? How does it differ from the Christian conception as found in St. Augustine's writings? From Aristotle's or Cicero's classical conception in the Metaphysics and the De re publica? (bring those readings along and we will discuss them.) And from Lucretius's conception?

    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?

    Psychiatry, Psychology, and Philosophy.

    Seventeenth Century

    Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding

    Hobbes, Leviathan.

    Leviathan, ch. 46 (excerpts)

    Medieval

    St. Thomas Aquinas, the so-called "Treatise on Law" in the Summa Theologica, Question 91, parts 2 (Whether there is a natural law?), 3 (Whether there is a human law?), and 4 (Whether there is a divine Law?), and Question 109, Article 2.

    The excerpts from St. Thomas's Summa Theologica illustrate the scholastic method of philosophic exposition or demonstration.

    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.

    According to Aquinas, what is the difference between natural law and divine law? What is the purpose of human law? (Since human law is man-made law or legislation, this question is another way of asking what the purpose of government is.) What is the standard by which human law should be evaluated? (This is another way of asking what the basis or source of political-legal authority is.)

    Marsilius of Padua, Defensor Pacis (selections).

    John of Salisbury, Policraticus, Book Four (selections)..

    Excerpts from Medieval Muslim Philosophers: Alfarabi, Avicenna, Averroes.

    Ancient

    Asclepius (Hermetic, Nag Hammadi Library)

    Poemandres (Hermetic, Corpus Hermeticum)

    Discourse on the Ogdoad and Ennead (Hermetic, Nag Hammadi Library)

    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 ontological argument.

    Christian Classics World Wide Study Bible

    The Apocryphon of John

    Gnosis Archive

    The Hymn of the Pearl

    Hans Jonas excerpt on anthropology.

    Handout on Gnostic ethics with excerpts from Jonas, Knox, Cohn, and Mahé. The excerpt from Mahé provides a good comparison of Gnostic and Hermetic "gnosis." As you read the excerpts from Jonas, Knox, and Cohn, look for the common point that they make about gnostic "antinomianism." ("Antinomian" comes from the prefix "anti," meaning "against," and "nomian" , from nomos, the Greek word for "law" or convention, custom, tradition.) What particular phrase does each author coin to label the extreme position of gnostic antinomianism? How does Mahé's account of the pursuit of gnosis contrast to the account of Jonas et al? Is it also antinomian? Compare it to the Classical conception of philosophy.

    Click on this radio spot, compliments of Alumna Maria Madden, for an interesting story on Lucretius.

    Stoic cosmology: Cicero, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius.

    Please read the following sections of Epictetus's Enchiridion, or "Manual" or "Handbook:" §§1-14, 21-22, 26, 29-31, 33, 41, and 48. This amounts to about three-to-four pages of reading in total. Enchiridions were codes of personal conduct in the ancient world. Epictetus was a famous Stoic sage. Since the Stoics largely followed classical philosophy, this is an example of classical ethics.

    Stephanus Numbers (Plato)

    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.)

    Book Two, chapters 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 & 8 of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics.

    Book Ten, chapters 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, & 9 of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics. These chapters provide a Classical critique of hedonism, an integration of Aristotle's moral and intellectual virtues, and the connection between Classical ethics and politics.

    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.

    Politics, Book One

    POL 211 Material

    You may be interested in this famous essay, "The Talented Tenth", by the black American scholar, author, and civil rights leader W.E.B. Du Bois. He later refered to this as the "aristocracy of talent," in his autobiography Dusk of Dawn, saying that "the power of this aristocracy of talent was to lie in its knowledge and character, not in its wealth.�

    John Stuart Mill's On Liberty.

    Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America : volume one, chapter fifteen, "Unlimited Power of the Majority in The United States, and its Consequences," and volume two, chapter two, "Of the Principal Source of Belief Among Democratic Nations." The version of the book that I have linked here does not provide chapter numbers in the table of contents, just the titles, so use these chapter titles to find the readings in the table of contents. I suggest that you read the second, shorter chapter first. This book, first published in 1835, is one of the great classics of American history and political theory. We will follow this on Friday with chapter one of John Stuart Mill's even more famous book, On Liberty (or its original title Essays on Liberty), that was directly influenced by de Tocqueville's arguments.

    1. Please read these excerpts from David Hume's essays.
    2. Please look at the Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights, the American Bill of Rights, and the French "Declaration of the Rights of Man." The first three can be found on this Yale Avalon Project website; the last can be found here. See the questions below.
    3. Please review the five fundamental conceptions and the four philosophic traditions in the "Introduction to Political Theory" article assigned the first day of class.

    As you read the Hume essays, what two possible foundations of political authority does Hume discuss in "On the Original Contract"? What problem does he have with the idea of a social contract? Do you agree?

    What is the essential function of government, according to Hume in "On the Origin of Government"? What two principles are forever in tension with one another in government? Which, if either, should be dominant, according to Hume?

    As you review the four different bills of rights, which of the four appears to be more a political theory than a list of specific rights and liberties? Which appear(s) to be most tied to specific historical situations—that is, which guarantee(s) the most detailed, non-theoretical liberties? Does the American Bill of Rights seem more like the English bills or the French Declaration? Why? What seems to be the philosophic or theoretical basis for each of the bills of rights?

    Finally, what are the fundamental conceptions that are addressed by political philosophy? What are the four basic traditions that we examine in the course?

    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."

    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 of Locke's Second Treatise, and 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.

    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.

    PAST SEMESTERS

    The following is bits and pieces from past semesters. I may need the stuff again, so I do not erase it, but do not assume that the assignments for the course will be exactly the same as in the past. I am constantly tinkering with the readings.

    POL 211 ASSIGNMENTS

    Second Semester Essential Readings:

    1. Walter Lippmann, "The Eclipse of the Public Philosophy," from Essays in the Public Philosophy.
    2. Modern Philosophers' Rejections of Classical Philosophy
    3. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, chapters 13, 14, 16, 17, 21, 46.
    4. John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, §§ or ¶¶1-14, 87-89, 95-99, 123-131.
    5. John Locke, Essay on Human Understanding: Book II, ch. 1, ¶¶1-8, and ch. 20.
    6. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, Preface, not the epistle dedicatory or dedication, the introductory paragraphs, and Parts One and Two.
    7. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Social Contract, Book I (all); Book II, ch. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8; Book III, ch. 1, 10-14; Book IV., ch. 1, 2, 8.
    8. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto.

    For the exam: The main question or issue that is common to all of the modern political theories that we have read over the past few weeks is the question of authority: "What gives you the right to tell me what to do?" The question can be made less personal, of course, and be expressed as "what is the basis of political or legal or, perhaps, moral authority?" or rather "What should be the basis of political or legal or social authority?" Mill's essay On Liberty directly addresses this question, but Rousseau, Locke, Hobbes, and Hume give it no less attention in the readings that were assigned for class. Following Rousseau and most other philosophers, we have in class distinguished authority, the capacity to create duty or obligation, from coercion or force, the capacity to create obedience but not duty. If you have a good idea of how the above-named writers answered the question of authority in the assigned readings, you will be in good shape for the exam. Focus, of course, on Mill and Rousseau and to a slightly lesser extent, on Hume's two essays (after Tuesday's class, be assured that Hume will be on the exam and that Locke, Hobbes, and Comte will be, too!).

    In particular, consider the following questions:

    1. What is the significance of social contracts in general, and of the specific forms of the contracts that we have studied, for the question of authority?
    2. For those theorists who reject social contract theory, why do they reject it and what do they put in its place?
    3. The ideas of liberty and equality also play a huge role in modern political theory. How do Mill, Rousseau, and Hume describe liberty and equality?
    4. If "liberalism" generally stands for the maximum amount of individual liberty possible in a functioning society, are Mill, Rousseau, and Hume (and Hobbes and Locke and Comte, for that matter) liberals? Why?
    5. The Declaration of Independence proclaims that "all men are created equal." Do Mill, Rousseau, and Hume agree?
    6. What is the anthropology—both empirical and philosophical—of Mill, Rousseau, and Hume, as presented in the assigned readings?
    7. The idea of universal human progress played a role in some of the theories but not in others; what role did it play in Mill's, Rousseau's, Hume's—and Hobbes's and Locke's—political theories?

    The assigned readings did not cover all of the philosophical conceptions that comprehensive philosophies address. Certainly, Mill and Hume did address all of the conceptions in the whole body of their writings, but we did not read the whole body. Therefore, I will not directly ask about the cosmological or epistemological aspects of any of the theories we have studied nor about the philosophic traditions into which these writers fit. All the above-named writers fit generally into the Epicurean tradition, but Mill and Locke, for examples, also depart from Epicurean ideas in some significant respects. Familiarity with the Epicurean tradition will give you a framework that can be useful for understanding how the different parts of the assigned readings fit together—or how they reflect significant departures from the Epicurean tradition—but studying the traditions and all five of the philosophical conceptions is not necessary for this exam. Focus on the study questions listed above.

    Assignments of Western Political Concepts II, Spring Semester, 2014

    1. John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism (all of it).
    2. J.S. Mill, On Liberty (chapters 1, 3, and 4).
    3. J.S. Mill, excerpts from Considerations on Representative Government.
    4. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on the Origin of Inequality (all of it).
    5. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract (excerpts)
    6. excerpts from Hobbes, Leviathan
    7. excerpts from Locke, Second Treatise of Government and Essay on Human Understanding
    8. excerpts from Aristotle
    9. excerpts from Auguste Comte's Course of Positive Philosophy.
    10. David Hume, the essays "Original Contract" (excerpt) and "On the Origin of Government."

    This weather really has me scrambling. Let's make the paper on Mill due next Tuesday (not Friday). To ease you back into the discussion, please read the material from chapter one (only chapter one) in these excerpts from Mill's Considerations on Representative Government. I am assuming that we meet on Tuesday; this gives you an assignment in any case. Ask yourself, "According to Mill, what are the standards by which government or forms of government are properly judged?" "Is representative government always the best government?" "If representative government is the best, why is it the best?"

    A bit of Locke's Second Treatise for Friday. His book is divided into chapters, which are then further divided into sections (§s) or paragraphs (¶s). These are the paragraphs that I want you to read: ¶¶1-14, 95-97, 123-127. Compare Locke's views in these paragraphs to Hobbes's.

    Readings on ideologies:

    1. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto
    2. Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Book One, Chapter 11, "Nation and Race."
    3. Excerpts from Hitler Speeches

    4. A. James Gregor, "The Ideology of Fascism" (excerpt).
    5. Alison Jaggar, "Political Philosophies of Women's Liberation"
    6. Richard Ellis, The Dark Side of the Left, chapter 8 (excerpt) and 9 (complete).

    Gregor's essay appears in a book of essays edited by Gerhard Weinberg entitled Transformation of a Continent, copyright 1975. Note: Weinberg did not write Transformation of a Continent. Nobody wrote it. Weinberg edited a collection of essays, and wrote an introduction. Some editor at Burgess Publishing, perhaps, decided to call the edited collection Transformation of a Continent. Gregor did not write Transformation of a Continent; Gregor wrote an essay entitled "The Ideology of Fascism," which appears in Transformation of a Continent. Note my use of italics and quotation marks. Cite Gregor accordingly. (The other essays in the collection are very good.)

    A couple of sites you may beinterested in:

    1. The Voluntary Human Extenction Movement: May we live long and die out!
    2. Dr. Londa Schiebinger, "Creating Sustainable Science," in The Gender and Science Reader, particularly pages 669-470. Feminist math and physics.
    3. Dr. Barbara Whitten, "(Baby) Steps Toward Feminist Physics". You guessed it.
    4. A blog on Feminist Physics: It's all in the Epistemology.
    5. Lawyers at Work. Just imagine: this might be you one day!

    Please read the following excerpts from Locke's Essay on Human Understanding: Book II, ch. 1, ¶¶1-8, and ch. 20. How do the ideas expressed by Locke in these passages square with the ideas about natural law in his Second Treatise? Are they mutually consistent? If all our thoughts based on sensory impressions, how do we discover the law of nature? Lippmann has Hobbes and Locke in mind when he discusses the "Rupture in Modern Times," §5 of "The Eclipse."

    Assignments of Western Political Concepts II, Spring Semester, 2013

    Readings for the Course (Focus on Mass Society)

    1. Introduction to Political Theory
    2. Lippmann, The Public Philosophy, ch. 8. See also Robert Kaplan's article, "The Plantagenet Effect."

    Readings on Liberalism and the Question of Authority

    1. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Question 91
    2. "Modern Philosophers' Rejection of Classical Philosophy"
    3. Machiavelli, The Prince, ch. 15
    4. Hobbes, Leviathan, ch. 13.
    5. Locke, Second Treatise of Government, sections 1-8, 11-13, 95-95, 135.
    6. Hobbes, Leviathan, ch. 16, 17.
    7. Hume, "On the Original Contract," "On the Origin of Government"
    8. British, American, French bills of rights

    Readings on Mass Society

    1. de Tocqueville, Democracy on America, Vol. 1, Introduction, ch. 15; Vol II, ch. 2.
    2. Mill, On Liberty, ch. 1.
    3. Ortega y Gasset, The Revolt of the Masses, ch. 1, 2, 6 & 7.
    4. Walter Lippmann, The Public Philosophy, chs. 1 & 3.
    5. Edward Bernays, Propaganda.
    6. B.F. Skinner, Beyond Freedom and Dignity, ch. 1, 2, 3.
    7. A. James Gregor, "The Ideology of Fascism," in Weinberg, Transformation of a Continent.
    8. C.S. Lewis, Abolition of Man.
      A few study questions to get you through de Tocqueville:
    1. In chapter 15, "Unlimited Power of the Majority in the United States, and Its Consequences," how does de Tocqueville define "democratic government"?
    2. Where, according to de Tocqueville, does ultimate authority rest in the United States?
    3. According to de Tocqueville, upon what does this power rest?
    4. In the second section of chapter 15, what are some of the natural defects of democracy?
    5. In the third section, what is or should be the standard by which the will of the majority in any democratic nation is judged?
    6. What is the problem with the supreme social power or authority in America, according to de Tocqueville? What is his suggested solution?
    7. In the next section (§) what distinction does de Tocqueville draw between arbitrary power and tyrannical power?
    8. In the next section, "Power Exercised by the Majority in America upon Opinions," probably the most important section of the chapter, what has been the principal consequence of democracy on the thinking of Americans, according to de Tocqueville?
    9. What ironic consequence has the freedom of expression (e.g., First Amendment) in America had on American public opinion?
    10. In the next section, what distinction does de Tocqueville draw between a degraded people and a miserable people?
    11. According to de Tocqueville in the last section of chapter 15, what is usually the cause of anarchy?
    12. In chapter 2 of volume 2, what is "dogmatic belief," according to de Tocqueville?
    13. Is dogmatic belief a good thing or a bad thing? Why?
    14. What is the consequence of intellectual authority during an "age of equality," according to de Tocqueville?
    15. What are two of the consequences of the principle of equality, according to de Tocqueville?

    If you are interested, you might also want to take a look at the Author's Introduction to Democracy in America and compare de Tocqueville's brief political history to Mill's in chapter one of On Liberty.

    Jose Ortega y Gasset's classic 1932 work, The Revolt of the Masses. The first couple of chapters set the stage for his argument. Compare them to the comments of de Tocqueville and Mill. The later chapters describe Ortega's understanding of the problem they pose. Compare these chapters closely with Lippmann's article, as well as with de Tocqueville's and Mill's. What are Ortega's main points? Why are the masses, as Ortega describes them, a problem for liberal democracy? Are they a problem for monarchy? Are Ortega's views consistent with Lippmann's?

      Here are a few study questions to help you through the Ortega reading:
    1. (Chapter One) What, according to Ortega, is the most important fact for the public life of Europe in 1930?
    2. What is Ortega's concept of "agglomeration" or "plenitude"?
    3. What are the two necessary components of society?
    4. What is the "conversion of quantity into quality"?
    5. Who is the "mass man"?
    6. Who is the "select man"? (Which one are you?)
    7. What is the relation of Ortega's essential social divisions to social classes?
    8. What is Ortega's "old democracy" as contrasted to "hyperdemocracy"?
    9. What is "the evil" of hyperdemocracy?
    10. (Chapter Two) What precedent does Ortega point to for the present crisis?
    11. What is Ortega's "radically aristocratic interpretation of history"? (Remember Hume? Mill?)
    12. What is the difference between Ortega's "aristocracy" and "Society" or "High Society" or the "titled aristocracy"?
    13. What two aspects of Ortega's "fact of our times" does he begin to examine?
    14. What does he mean by the "rise of the level of history"?
    15. Did Europe become "americanized"?
    16. (Chapter Six) What is the origin of modern mass man? (Keep in mind that de Tocqueville wrote in the 1830s and Mill in the 1850s.)
    17. At the end of the Nineteenth Century, how did mass man view life?
    18. According to Ortega, what three principles generated the new world of mass man? Can you boil the three down to two? (How does Lippmann fit in here?)
    19. What was the essential difference between the men produced by the Nineteenth Century and all previous generations of men?
    20. Why does Ortega liken modern mass man to a spoiled child?
    21. What is Ortega's central thesis here? (Does Lippmann's argument come to mind again?)
    22. (Chapter Seven) How does the world of the early Twentieth Century appear to mass man? (Does it still appear that way?)
    23. What is mass man's response to that world?
    24. How does mass man's response contrast to the select man's, or the noble's, or the aristocrat's response? Are these latter three the same?
    25. How does Ortega characterize the noble or aristocratic life?
    26. What is Ortega's "corollary" thesis?
    27. Remember Rousseau's definition of authority: the ability to create obligation or duty. What implications for political and moral authority does Ortega's understanding of mass society, society directed by mass-man?

    Ortega's argument is a powerful one, one not often heard today. But Ortega may not be correct. The world Ortega describes may no longer exist. Do you think it does? Can you see points of agreement and disagreement in Ortega's argument with Mill's, de Tocqueville's, or Lippmann's? Does it bear a resemblance to Jefferson's "natural aristocracy"? There is a lot to chew on here.

    Readings on Ideology

    1. Marx and Engels, Communist Manifesto. Trotsky's Introduction.
    2. Mussolini, "The Doctrine of Fascism."
    3. Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, ch. 11, "Race and People."
    4. Norman Cohn, Pursuit of the Millennium, chapter 1, "The Tradition of Apocalyptic Prophecy."
    5. Alison Jaggar, �Political Philosophies of Women�s Liberation.�
    6. Ellis, Dark Side of the Left, �Apocalypse and Authoritarianism in the Radical Environmental Movement.�
    7. Scott Lowe, "The Taiping Revolution and Mao's Great Leap Forward," in Catherine Wessinger, Millennialism, Persecution, and Violence: Historical Cases
    8. David Rapoport, "Fear and Trembling: Terrorism in Three Religious Traditions."
    9. Auguste Comte, First Lecture on Positivism.

    We will complete the Lippmann article and make appropriate references to the following excerpts—please read them for Tuesday:

    1. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Question 91, articles (or "points of inquiry") 1-4 (on eternal, natural, human, and Divine law).
    2. "Modern Philosophers' Rejection of Classical Philosophy"
    3. Machiavelli, The Prince, ch. 15
    4. Hobbes, Leviathan, ch. 13.
    5. Locke, Second Treatise of Government, sections (not chapters!) 1-8 (each section is about one paragraph long). You can find sections 1-3 (which make up all of chapter 1) here, and sections 4-8, which make up part of chapter 2, here. .

    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.

    Rules for One-Page Papers

    POL 210 First Paper: The topic for the first one-page paper is a comparison-contrast of the Classical cosmology or ontology assigned for Tuesday with either the Epicurean view of Lucretius or the ancient view described by Eliade and the Frankforts. You must have at least four footnotes to the texts that you use. The whole purpose of a footnote reference is to permit and require the writer to identify the precise passages in the original material that the writer is relying on for his assertions and interpretations. The short length of the paper suggests that you structure your comparison into two substantive paragraphs—one on the classical tradition and one on either the Epicurean or the ancient—and either a short introductory statement of the precise point you wish to make (your thesis) or a short conclusion summarizing the point that you just made.

    Rules/Guidelines for One-Page Papers.

    1. The paper must, of course, be typed and submitted as a hard copy. Nothing handwritten or emailed will be accepted.
    2. The only sources to be used are the assigned readings—no other primary or secondary materials.
    3. The absolute limit is one page. I will not read anything that is not on that one page. Use a twelve point font, preferably Times New Roman, Univers, Garamond, or CG Times, black ink, double-spaced, and the default page margins: typically one inch all around.
    4. A title page is required. To the one page paper, attach a title page like the one I show you in class. Use only your Marymount Student I.D. number—NOT YOUR NAME. YOUR NAME SHOULD NOT APPEAR ANYWHERE ON THE TITLE PAGE OR ANYPLACE ELSE ON THE PAPER. I WANT COMPLETE ANONYMITY. If you violate this anonymity rule, I will not accept the paper and you will receive a zero.
    5. Use the footnote format that I explain below and in class.
    6. Do not begin the paper with a restatement of the topic. You do not have enough space for wasted words, so get right into a thesis statement and your supporting statements.
    7. The deadline is the beginning of class on Tuesday, September 9th. This means you must come to class: do not put it in the rack on my office door. Do not try to give it to me after class.
    8. I will ratchet up the grading of the papers: (1) no grade on this first paper/writing sample, (2) 50-50 writing-content on the second paper so a paper with lousy writng but good content (or vice-versa) will pass, and (3) the writing and content counted together on the third paper so a paper with more than three errors will fail regardless of content.

    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 Eliade and the Frankforts are cited by page number. (3) Passages from Cicero, Epictetus, or Marcus Aurelius are to book and part/chapter/section number. Book numbers in Roman numerals; chapter numbers in Arabic numerals in both these cases, just like in the linked text.

    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 the Frankforts, Eliade, Lucretius, Cicero, and Epictetus:

    1Henri and H.A. Frankfort, "Myth and Reality," in Before Philosophy, 18.

    2Mircea Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane, 8.

    3Lucretius, On the Nature of the Universe, I.350.

    4Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods, VII.6.

    5Ibid. (A reference to the exact same source—author, title, the location in the text—in the very next footnote. "Ibid." refers back to the source in the previous footnote.)

    6Lucretius, III.135. (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.)

    7Epictetus, Discourses, V.13. (new source)

    The other punctuation to be mastered at this time is the introduction of quotes. If you introduce them using the word "that" (what Turabian calls run-in quotes), 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 final assignment is the handout by Mahe, Jonas, Knox, and Cohn (extra copies are in the rack on my office door) and Aquinas, "Treatise on Law," Question 91, Article 3 (on human law) and Question 95, Articles 1 & 2, available on the Politics Readings page.

    Please read the assignments for Lucretius and Hobbes listed on the Politics Readings page. Use these, and any of the previously assigned readings from Lucretius, Hobbes, and Epicurus, in writing your final one-page paper on the question: "How does Epicurean political theory fit Epicurean ontology, epistemology, anthropology, and ethics?" Tying together these five conceptions is the whole purpose of the course. You will be asked to do the same for other traditions on the final exam. I suggest that you begin with Epicurean political theory (read the very first paragraph on political theory at the top of the Politics Readings page, and address the questions in a couple of sentences), and then show how the Epicurean answers necessarly follow from Epicurean ethics, then Epicurean anthropology, epistemology, and ontology. Or you can start from the ontology and work forwards towaed the Epicurean conception of politics. Your second mid-term exam should help you discuss the relation between Epicurean epistemology and anthropology.

    POL 210 Final One-Page Paper.

    1. The paper must, of course, be typed and submitted as a hard copy. Nothing handwritten or emailed will be accepted.
    2. The only sources to be used are the assigned readings—no other primary or secondary materials.
    3. The absolute limit is one page. I will not read anything that is not on that one page. Use a twelve point font, preferably Times New Roman, Univers, Garamond, or CG Times, black ink, double-spaced, and the default page margins: typically one inch all around.
    4. A title page is required. To the one page paper, attach a title page like the one I showed you in class. Use only your Marymount Student I.D. number—NOT YOUR NAME. YOUR NAME SHOULD NOT APPEAR ANYWHERE ON THE TITLE PAGE OR ANYPLACE ELSE ON THE PAPER. I WANT COMPLETE ANONYMITY. If you violate this anonymity rule, I will not accept the paper and you will receive a zero.
    5. Use the footnote format that I explain below and in class.
    6. Do not begin the paper with a restatement of the topic above. You do not have enough space for wasted words, so get right into a thesis statement and your supporting statements.
      7. The deadline is the beginning of class on Tuesday, December 2d. This means you must come to class: do not put it in the rack on my office door. Do not try to give it to me after class.
    7. I will count the writing and content together on the this paper so if it has more than three errors (marked by little circles in the right-hand margin), it will fail regardless of content, so write carefully and proofread!

    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 Hobbes's Leviathan are to chapter, as you have done in previous papers. References to statements from Epicurus's Principal Doctrines are to the numbered sections. Be careful. I expect you to be able to do footnotes, including ibid.s, competently by this time and will count mistakes as part of the overall limit of three. Here are sample footnotes for Hobbes, Lucretius, and Epicurus:

    1Hobbes, Leviathan, ch. 17.

    2Lucretius, On the Nature of the Universe, IV.350.

    3Epicurus, Principal Doctrines, 31.

    4Ibid. (A reference to the exact same source—author, title, the location in the text—in the very next footnote. "Ibid." refers back to the source—title and section—in the previous footnote.)

    5Lucretius, II.135. (A subsequent reference to a source cited before, but not immediately before. You cannot use "Ibid.," because this is not the same source cited in the immediately preceding footnote, so you abbreviate the earlier cited source so that the reader recognizes what you are referring to.)

    6Ibid., V. 464. ("Ibid." indicates that you are referring to the same source—Lucretius's On the Nature of the Universe—that you referred to in the previous note, but this time to a different part of that source.)

    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.

    In introducing 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!

    Some suggestions: As you read the material and write the paper, consider the following questions:

    1. What is the basis of political and legal authority, according to Hobbes?
    2. What is the function of the state or of government, according to Hobbes and the other Epicureans?
    3. How is the function of the state related to empirical anthropology?
    4. What is the relation of political and legal authority to ethical or moral principle, according to the Epicureans?
    5. How is all authority, political-legal and ethical, related to the essential nature of man, according to the Epicureans?
    6. How does Epicurean epistemology explain the Epicureans' conception of philosophical anthropology? (How do we know the nature of man?)
    7. How is Epicurean epistemology and philosophical anthropology related to Epicurean ontology, the nature of reality?

    One further note: do not use the noun "human" as a synonym for "man" unless you are specifically distinguishing between a human trait (note the adjective here) and a divine or animal trait. The noun "human" implies this distinction. In this discipline, the noun "man" is the standard reference.

    POL 210 Second Paper: "What is different about the Epicurean conception of 'reason' (see Hobbes) and the Classical conception of 'reason' (see Aristotle in particular)."

    You can compare the two epistemologies by comparing and contrasting Hobbes's conception of "prudence" (practical wisdom) in the Leviathan with Aristotle's conception of "prudence" in the Nicomachean Ethics. How do their two different ideas of prudence reflect the epicurean and the classical approaches to knowledge and ontology? Or you can compare Hobbes's conception of "reasoning" with Aristotle's conception of "art" (in the Nicomachean Ethics. Is Hobbes's idea of reasoning similar to Aristotle's idea of practicing an art or craft? Remember, the classical focus should be on Aristotle's intellectual virtues—the assignment for Friday the 11th—rather than on Plato's divided line or Aristotle's four causes. Use Plato to show his similarities with Aristotle. If you compare Hobbes's conception of "reason" Aristotle's concept of "intuitive reason," you may use Plato's concept of "reason" (at 511a of the Republic) to demonstrate its agreement with Aristotle's conception.

    Do not make this more difficult than it is. Think about how you yourself learn things. Think about how you learned as a child; about how you learn math; how you learn history; how you learn how to make things; how you learn what new things are or who new people are. Try to tie these familiar experiences to what Hobbes and Aristotle (and Lucretius and Plato) are talking about. Make sure you understand what you write: write only what you are able to understand at this point. You will understand more as time goes on.

    Rules/Guidelines for One-Page Papers.

    1. The paper must, of course, be typed and submitted as a hard copy. Nothing handwritten or emailed will be accepted.
    2. The only sources to be used are the assigned readings—no other primary or secondary materials.
    3. The absolute limit is one page. I will not read anything that is not on that one page. Use a twelve point font, preferably Times New Roman, Univers, Garamond, or CG Times, black ink, double-spaced, and the default page margins: typically one inch all around.
    4. A title page is required. To the one page paper, attach a title page like the one I show you in class. Use only your Marymount Student I.D. number—NOT YOUR NAME. YOUR NAME SHOULD NOT APPEAR ANYWHERE ON THE TITLE PAGE OR ANYPLACE ELSE ON THE PAPER. I WANT COMPLETE ANONYMITY. If you violate this anonymity rule, I will not accept the paper and you will receive a zero.
    5. Use the footnote format that I explain below and in class.
    6. Do not begin the paper with a restatement of the topic. You do not have enough space for wasted words, so get right into a thesis statement and your supporting statements.
    7. The deadline is the beginning of class on Friday, October 11th. This means you must come to class: do not put it in the rack on my office door. Do not try to give it to me after class.
    8. I will ratchet up the grading of the papers: (1) no grade on the first paper/writing sample, (2) 50-50 writing-content on the second paper so a paper with lousy writng but good content (or vice-versa) will pass, and (3) the writing and content counted together on the third paper so a paper with more than three errors will fail regardless of content.

    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 cited by chapter number. (3) Passages from Aristotle are to book title (Physics or Nicomachean Ethics) and Bekker Numbers or to book title, book number, and part/chapter/section number, depending on the edition of Aristotle that you use. Book numbers in Roman numerals; chapter numbers in Arabic numerals in both these cases, just like in the linked text. (4) Passages in Plato's Republic are to Stephanus Numbers, which have been integrated into the excerpt that we use in class.

    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. Each footnote itself is punctuated with a final period. Here are sample footnotes for Hobbes, Lucretius, Aristotle, and Plato:

    1Hobbes, Leviathan, ch. 7.

    2Lucretius, On the Nature of the Universe, IV.350.

    3Aristotle, Physics, II.3. (or, using Bekker numbers, 3Aristotle, Physics, 194b23-25.)

    4Ibid. (A reference to the exact same source—author, title, the location in the text—in the very next footnote. "Ibid." refers back to the source in the previous footnote.)

    5Lucretius, II.135. (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.)

    6Plato, Republic, 508a. (Cite to the closest preceding Stephanus number in the Plato excerpts.)

    7Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, VI.5 (or 7Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 1140b5.) (Citing a second source from Aristotle, different from the Physics.)

    8Physics, II.8. (No need to indicate Aristotle is the author here; you already cited the author and title in a previous footnote; here, all you need is a distinctive reference to indicate which previously cited book of Aristotle you are referring to.)

    9Ibid., II.4. (A reference to a different location within the immediately preceding cited source.)

    The other punctuation to be mastered at this time is the introduction of quotes. If you introduce them using the word "that" (what Turabian calls run-in quotes), 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!

    POL 210 Final One-Page Paper.

    1. The paper must, of course, be typed and submitted as a hard copy. Nothing handwritten or emailed will be accepted.
    2. The only sources to be used are the assigned readings—no other primary or secondary materials.
    3. The absolute limit is one page. I will not read anything that is not on that one page. Use a twelve point font, preferably Times New Roman, Univers, Garamond, or CG Times, black ink, double-spaced, and the default page margins: typically one inch all around.
    4. A title page is required. To the one page paper, attach a title page like the one I showed you in class. Use only your Marymount Student I.D. number—NOT YOUR NAME. YOUR NAME SHOULD NOT APPEAR ANYWHERE ON THE TITLE PAGE OR ANYPLACE ELSE ON THE PAPER. I WANT COMPLETE ANONYMITY. If you violate this anonymity rule, I will not accept the paper and you will receive a zero.
    5. Use the footnote format that I explain below and in class.
    6. Do not begin the paper with a restatement of the topic above. You do not have enough space for wasted words, so get right into a thesis statement and your supporting statements.
      7. The deadline is the beginning of class on Tuesday, November 22nd. This means you must come to class: do not put it in the rack on my office door. Do not try to give it to me after class.
    7. I will count the writing and content together on the this paper so if it has more than three errors (marked by little circles in the right-hand margin), it will fail regardless of content.

    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!

    POL 211 First Paper

    Rules/Guidelines for One-Page Papers.

    1. The paper must, of course, be typed and submitted as a hard copy. Nothing handwritten or emailed will be accepted.
    2. The only sources to be used are the assigned readings—no other primary or secondary materials.
    3. The absolute limit is one page. I will not read anything that is not on that one page. Use a twelve point font, preferably Times New Roman, Univers, Garamond, or CG Times, black ink, double-spaced, and the default page margins: typically one inch all around.
    4. A title page is required. To the one page paper, attach a title page like the one I show you in class. Use only your Marymount Student I.D. number—NOT YOUR NAME. YOUR NAME SHOULD NOT APPEAR ANYWHERE ON THE TITLE PAGE OR ANYPLACE ELSE ON THE PAPER. I WANT COMPLETE ANONYMITY. If you violate this anonymity rule, I will not accept the paper and you will receive a zero.
    5. Use the footnote format that I explain below and in class.
    6. Do not begin the paper with a restatement of the topic. You do not have enough space for wasted words, so get right into a thesis statement and your supporting statements. The paper should be divided into at least two paragraphs.
    7. The deadline is the beginning of class on Tuesday, February 4th. This means you must come to class: do not put it in the rack on my office door. Do not try to give it to me after class. If you cannot make it to class, you must email a copy of the paper to me by 11:00am Tuesday and get me a hard copy by Wednesday ot Friday at the latest. I will not read the emailed copy, but will check it against the hard copy after I correct the hard copy. The absence will be excused or unexcused, as appropriate.
    8. I will ratchet up the grading of the papers: (1) no grade on this first paper/writing sample, (2) 50-50 writing-content on the second paper so a paper with lousy writng but good content (or vice-versa) will pass, and (3) the writing and content counted together on the third paper so a paper with more than three errors will fail regardless of content.

    The purpose of the references is to enable me to find the exact passage you are quoting or paraphrasing or otherwise referring to. Titles of works are italicized; titles of articles, essays, and chapters are placed in quotes. For this paper there are several possible sources that you may cite:

    1. Passages from Lippmann's essay are cited by page number.
    2. Passages from Aristotle's two works are cited by title of the work (in italics), book number (in Roman numerals), and chapter number (in Arabic numerals).
    3. Passages from St. Thomas's (or "Aquinas's," but never "St.Aquinas's") Summa are cited to Question 91 and article number (1 to 6) only.
    4. Passages from Hobbes's Leviathan are cited by chapter number.
    5. Passages from Locke's two works are cited by either section or paragraph number (Locke's Second Treatise of Government) or book and chapter number (Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding.
    6. Passages from Machiavelli's Prince, chapter 15, are cited to, well, Machiavelli, The Prince, ch. 15.

    1Walter Lippmann, "The Eclipse of the Public Philosophy," 107.

    2Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, I.2.

    3Aristotle, Politics, I.1.

    4Aquinas, Question 91, Article 3.

    5Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, ch. 13.

    6Ibid. [This is a reference to exactly the same work and exactly the same chapter cited in the immediately preceding footnote.]

    7Ibid., ch. 17. [This is a reference to the last cited work, but a different chapter.]

    8Lippmann, 110. [This is a reference to a previously cited work. Since only one work by Lippmann was cited above (or supra), a simple reference to Lippmann is all that is necessary.]

    9Politics, I.1. [This is a reference to a previously cited work by Aristotle, but since two different works by Aristotle have been cited supra, you must indicate which of the two works you are referring to.]

    10John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, par. 13.

    At least five references are required.

    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. Each footnote itself is punctuated with a final period. Use Ibid. as appropriate. Refer back to the Lippmann essay. The method of notation in that essay is very similar to the Chicago Style method that I am asking you to use. It isn't difficult.

    The other punctuation to be mastered at this time is the introduction of quotes. If you introduce them using the word "that" (what Turabian calls run-in quotes), 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!

    POL 211 Second Paper Topic: "How does Locke's social contract, described in sections (§§) 95-97 of his Second Treatise, OR how does Hobbes's social contract, described in chapters 16 and 17 of Leviathan, provide a basis for a "liberal democracy"? Or explain how Locke's or Hobbes's social contract does not provide a basis for a liberal democracy. Use only the assigned readings—this is not a research paper.

    For example, you may want to explain how the rationale for Locke's social contract is consistent with Lippmann's understanding of the foundation (the public philosophy) of liberal democracy. Or, you may want to explain how Hobbes's social contract formula is not consistent with Lippmann's conception of liberal democracy. (Or how Locke's formula is not consistent or how Hobbes's formula is consistent— whatever seems true to you.) You should focus on only one of the two writers—Locke or Hobbes—though it may be a good idea to refer to the other author in order to clarify your ideas.

    You only have about 250 words to write. You cannot do everything in such a small assignment, so do not try to do too much. If you think you have a pretty good handle on the subject matter so far, write a short, persuasive argument that precisely responds to the question. If you are having trouble understanding what is going on so far, keep it simple. Try to show some understanding of what Lippmann means by "liberal democracy" and some understanding of Locke's or Hobbes's (not both) idea of the basis of political authority. I am more interested in seeing how well you can write and argue than in how deeply you understand the content of the readings. Therefore, read the rules for the papers as carefully or even more carefully than you read Locke and Hobbes. All of you should have completed EN 102 before entering this course—it is a university pre-requisite—so the rules for these papers should not be totally unfamiliar to you.

    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 Lippmann, Hobbes, and Locke. Note: for this paper, do not include information about publisher, city of publication, or date that you accessed material on the Internet. For footnote placement, simply imitate the way the Lippmann text cites footnotes; it uses a basic Chicago style.

    1John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, sec. 8. (Cite this work by the section/paragraph number, not chapter number.)

    2Walter Lippmann, "The Eclipse of the Public Philosophy," in Essays in the Public Philosophy, 93. (Cite Lippmann by page number of the essay.)

    3Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, ch. 13. (Cite Hobbes's book by chapter.)

    4Ibid. (A reference to the same source in the very next footnote. "Ibid." refers back to the source in the previous footnote.)

    5Lippmann, 99. (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.)

    6Ibid., 100 (Same work as immediately previous source, but different page number.)

    The other punctuation to be mastered by this time is the introduction of quotes. Mistakes will be counted among the three permissible mistakes. If you introduce quotes 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!

    POL 211 Third Paper

    Rules/Guidelines for One-Page Papers.

    1. The paper must, of course, be typed and submitted as a hard copy. Nothing handwritten or emailed will be accepted.
    2. The only sources to be used are the assigned readings—no other primary or secondary materials.
    3. The absolute limit is one page. I will not read anything that is not on that one page. Use a twelve point font, preferably Times New Roman, Univers, Garamond, or CG Times, black ink, double-spaced, and the default page margins: typically one inch all around.
    4. A title page is required. To the one page paper, attach a title page like this one. (You may be more imaginative in selecting a title:)) Use only your Marymount Student I.D. number—NOT YOUR NAME. YOUR NAME SHOULD NOT APPEAR ANYWHERE ON THE TITLE PAGE OR ANYPLACE ELSE ON THE PAPER. I WANT COMPLETE ANONYMITY. If you violate this anonymity rule, I will not accept the paper and you will receive a zero.
    5. Use the footnote format that I explain below. Use Ibid. as appropriate—you have had two previous opportunities to learn the use of the convention.
    6. Do not begin the paper with a restatement of the topic. You only have about 250 words to address the topic—not enough for wasted words—so get right into a thesis statement and your supporting statements.
    7. The deadline is the beginning of class on Tuesday, April 30th. This means you must come to class: do not put it in the rack on my office door. Do not try to give it to me after class.
    8. I ratchet up the grading of the papers: (1) no grade on the first paper/writing sample, (2) 50-50 writing-content on the second paper, and (3) counting the writing and content together on this third paper, so a paper with more than three errors (little circles in the right-hand margin) will fail regardless of content.

    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 several possible sources for you to cite. Use the examples below and the ones on the sample paper I handed out as models.

    FOOTNOTES (INCLUDING IBID.s). 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.

    Sample footnotes. Note: for this paper, do not include information about publisher, city of publication, or date that you accessed material on the Internet. All are cited by page number in the hard copy edition: you must have and use the hard copy page numbers! A period follows every footnote! For footnote placement, simply imitate the way the Lippmann text cites footnotes; it uses a basic Chicago style.

    1Alison Jaggar, "Political Philosophies of Women's Liberation," in Society and the Individual, 140.

    2Richard Ellis, "Apocalypse and Authoritarianism in the Radical Environmental Movement," in The Dark Side of the Left, 193.

    3Scott Lowe, "The Taiping Revolution and Mao's Great Leap Forward," in Millennialism, Persecution, and Violence: Historical Cases, 13.

    4Ibid. (A reference to the identical page and source in the very next footnote. "Ibid." refers back to the identical source in the previous footnote.)

    5Ellis, 99. (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.)

    6Ibid., 100. (Same work as immediately previous source, but different page number.)

    7David Rapoport, "Fear and Trembling: Terrorism in Three Religious Traditions," in American Political Science Review, 627.

    TITLES. Remember, titles of books are always italicized and titles of chapters in books and titles of articles are always in quotation marks. Always!

    QUOTATIONS. The other punctuation to be mastered by this time is the introduction of quotes. Mistakes will be counted among the three permissible mistakes. If you introduce quotes 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!

    Rules/Guidelines for POL 211 Third One-Page Paper. (April 2014)

    1. The paper must, of course, be typed and submitted as a hard copy. Nothing handwritten or emailed will be accepted.
    2. The only sources to be used are the assigned readings—no other primary or secondary materials.
    3. The absolute limit is one page. I will not read anything that is not on that one page. Use a twelve point font, preferably Times New Roman, Univers, Garamond, or CG Times, black ink, double-spaced, and the default page margins: typically one inch all around.
    4. A title page is required. To the one page paper, attach a title page like the one I show you in class. Use only your Marymount Student I.D. number—NOT YOUR NAME. YOUR NAME SHOULD NOT APPEAR ANYWHERE ON THE TITLE PAGE OR ANYPLACE ELSE ON THE PAPER. I WANT COMPLETE ANONYMITY. If you violate this anonymity rule, I will not accept the paper and you will receive a zero.
    5. Use the footnote format that I explain below and in class.
    6. Do not begin the paper with a restatement of the topic. You do not have enough space for wasted words, so get right into a thesis statement and your supporting statements. The paper should be divided into at least two paragraphs.
    7. The deadline is the beginning of class on Friday, May 2d. This means you must come to class: do not put it in the rack on my office door. Do not try to give it to me after class. If you cannot make it to class, you must email a copy of the paper to me by 11:00am Tuesday and get me a hard copy by Tuesday (the day of the final) at the latest. I will not read the emailed copy, but will check it against the hard copy after I correct the hard copy. The absence will be excused or unexcused, as appropriate.
    8. I ratchet up the grading of the papers: (1) no grade on the first paper/writing sample, (2) 50-50 writing-content on the second paper so a paper with poor writng but good content (or vice-versa) will still pass, and (3) the writing and content counted together on this third paper so a paper with more than three errors will fail regardless of content.

    You need at least four or five references or footnotes to either Mill or Rousseau in a paper like this. But remember: for Watkins, or Cohn, or Minogue—whichever author's approach that you choose—you should not put a reference in a footnote. You may quote or paraphrase the wording of their approaches on the webpage as you would any other source and attribute it to Richard Watkins, or Norman Cohn, or Kenneth Minogue, but do not cite his book, or me, or my webpage in a footnote. Just assume that what is on the webpage is in fact what Watkins or Cohn or Minogue said.

    Study the information on quotations and on footnotes in red below. This is your third (fourth, actually) paper. Mistakes on quotes and footnotes will count. Don't make the same mistakes. Remember Albert Einstein's definition of insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. This is also an excellent definition of stupidity—making the same mistakes over and over again and expecting a higher grade. Don't be stupid! Review your earlier papers. (Studies have shown that most students do not do this. Prove the studies wrong!)

    The purpose of the references is to enable me to find the exact passage you are quoting or paraphrasing or otherwise referring to. Titles of works are italicized; titles of articles, essays, and chapters are placed in quotes. For this paper there are just a few possible sources that you may cite:

    1. Passages from Mill's three assigned essays are cited by chapter number.
    2. Passages from Rousseau's two assigned works should be cited as follows: references to his Discourse on the Origin of Inequality should be cited by (1) the part of the Discourse to which you refer—the first part (I.) or the second part (II.)—and (2) the paragraph number of the reference. Thus a reference to something in paragraph 41 of the first part of the Discourse would be cited as 1Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, I.41. And so on. References to the Social Contract are to book number (Roman numeral) and chapter number (Arabic numeral): 2Social Contract, II.3.
    3. Subsequent references to earlier cited sources should be cited using appropriate references, such as Ibid. and the like, as I explained earlier this semester. See Turabian's Manual for Writers.
    4. No source should be cited for the elements of Watkins's, Cohn's, or Minogue's concepts. My gift to you.

    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 NUMBER. Each footnote itself is punctuated with a final period. Use Ibid. as appropriate. Refer back to the Lippmann essay for examples, or get and use one of the editions of Kate Turabian's Manual for Writers—cheap on abebooks.com. The method of notation in the Lippmann essay is very similar to the Chicago Style method that I am asking you to use. It isn't difficult.

    The other punctuation to be mastered at this time is the introduction of quotes. If you introduce them using the word "that" (what Turabian calls run-in quotes), 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!

    Miscellaneous Readings

    The Lippmann essay, "The Eclipse of the Public Philosophy," from his Essays in the Public Philosophy.

    If you are having trouble following Lippmann's argument in the essay, here are some more specific study questions to help you through the essay (they proceed in order through the essay):

    1. How does Lippmann go about proving that ideas are "efficacious"?
    2. According to Lippmann, what is human "culture"?
    3. What is human character? Are character and culture related? How?
    4. Where does Lippmann come down on the question of nature versus nurture?
    5. What has the question of nature versus nurture got to do with education?
    6. How is education related to culture? to character?
    7. According to Lippmann, what is the central, critical condition of Western society at the time he wrote the essay (1954)?
    8. What does Lippmann mean by "the public philosophy"? What is a public philosophy?
    9. What created the "great vacuum" that Lippmann discusses in the section two?
    10. Is Lippmann opposed to the right of individuals to have their own private opinions?
    11. What are the "traditions of civility" to which Lippmann repeatedly refers? (Pay close attention to the excerpt from Ernest Barker's book on pages 97-98.)
    12. Why does Lippmann call the privatization of beliefs a "subtle transformation" of the original status of the public philosophy?
    13. What are the "first and last things" that are part of the public philosophy?
    14. What is the radical change in the conception of freedom brought about by the privatization of belief?
    15. Does Lippmann believe that citizens should be indoctrinated with the public philosophy and punished for failures to conform to it?
    16. What is the relation of natural law to the public philosophy? to the traditions of civility?
    17. Why is it no longer the dominant way of viewing political and public behavior, according to Lippmann?
    18. Why is it important to liberal democracies?
    19. What is the origin of the notion of "universal laws of rational order"?
    20. Why are such laws useful for large states with diverse populations? Are they essential, or just useful, according to Lippmann?
    21. Why is such an order of law or norms "natural"? What does the term "natural" convey here?
    22. Why do modern men have the impulse to "escape from freedom"? Why is freedom intolerable to many? How does freedom in the modern world contribute to public disorder, according to Lippmann?
    23. What does the "lonely crowd," the lonely and anxious men of today need and long for, according to Lippmann?

    St. Thomas's Question 91 reflects the medieval conception of natural law and its relation to politics and society (in "human law") that Lippmann describes. Locke's Second Treatise and Hobbes's Leviathan reflect the new or modern conception of natural law described by Lippmann. Machiavelli, with one foot in the medieval world and one foot in the Modern, does not spell out a particular conception of natural law.

    In the essay, I think that Lippmann's distinction between the older, medieval conception of natural law (or the traditions of civility, or Western culture) and the new or Modern conception does not make clear the very significant change in philosophical traditions that the distinction represents. In effect, European culture left the classical and classical-Christian traditions upon which it was firmly founded and moved in Modern times (and is still moving) toward an Epicurean foundation. The nature of this change is reflected in the three excerpts from Bacon, Hobbes, and Descartes in the "Modern Philosophers' Rejection of Classical Philosophy." This change had profound effects on people's understanding of the ultimate basis of ethical and political authority, one of the key concepts we will study this semester.

    For those of you from the first semester, what tradition does Lippmann represent? Would it surprise you to know that for most of Lippmann's life, he was considered to be a man of the Left in politics?

    There is an awful lot of good stuff in this short essay. It is worth a re-reading or two now and thoughout the semester. It provides a good introduction to much of the substance that we will be discussing this semester.

    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.

    "What We're Fighting For"

    "How We Can Co-Exist."

    Some Views of Politics and Government.

    Ideologies

    Benito Mussolini's "Doctrine of Fascism"

    Mussolini's "Doctrine of Fascism"

    chapter 11 of Hitler's Mein Kampf.

    The Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels.

    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.)

    Further discussions of the fact-value dichotomy and the positivistic or scientistic social sciences can be found in a number of places:

    1. Leo Strauss, Natural Right and History, chapter 2
    2. Eric Voegelin, The New Science of Politics, "Introduction."
    3. Friedrich Hayek, The Counter-Revolution of Science
    4. Alasdair McIntyre, After Virtue
    5. Robert Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

    Nineteenth Century

    Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, "Herbert Spencer"

    "The New Toryism" from Herbert Spencer's Man versus the State.

    Joseph Mazzini's Duties of Man. Mazzini was one of the principal individuals responsible for the creation of modern Italy in the 19th century. His essay reflects some of the contemporary reaction against the liberalism that was identified with the Industrial Revolution and the capitalism that accompanyied it.

    Hegel, s.v. the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy entry, "Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel."

    John Stuart Mill, On Liberty.

    John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism.

    Chapter Two of Mill's Utilitarianism

    As you read Mill's essay on utilitarianism, consider the following:

    1. According to Mill, what is the "theory of utility"?
    2. What is the Greatest Happiness Principle"?
    3. According to Mill, is the pleasure of relaxing in a warm bath morally better than studying your Western Political Concepts assignments?
    4. Is the pleasure of eating, drinking, and generally carousing better morally better than the painful job of keeping an all-night watch over a sick friend?
    5. If you answer "no" to either of the previous two questions, does your answer pose a problem to Mill's Greatest Happiness Principle?
    6. According to Mill, can human nature be improved over time?
    7. According to Mill, is the world declining from a once-great Golden Age, or is the world headed on a path of constant improvement?
    8. How does the Greatest Happiness Principle, according to Mill, apply (or how should it apply) to politics?

    Compare Mill's argument for Utilitarianism, which we have been studying, with Aristotle's arguments on the nature of happiness, pleasure and pain, and character formaion in these excerpts from the Nicomachean Ethics.

    1. What does Aristotle say that happiness is? What does Mill say?
    2. What does Aristotle say that moral virtue is? What does Mill say?
    3. What does Aristotle say the ultimate standard of right and wrong (i.e., justice) is?
    4. What does Aristotle say the proper relation between virtue and pleasure is? What does Mill say?
    5. According to Aristotle, how do people achieve this proper relationship? What does Mill say?
    6. What does Aristotle say that prudence is? What do you think Mill would say?

    Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, The Communist Manifesto complete.

    As you read the Manifesto try to answer the following questions:

    1. In the first section of the Manifesto, "Bourgeois and Proletarians," what theory of history does Marx present?
    2. Who or what are the bourgeoisie?
    3. Who or what are the proletarians or the proletariat?
    4. What is the foundation of all history, politics, and civilization?
    5. What do Marx and Engels expect to happen soon?
    6. In the second section, "Proletarians and Communists," who are the communists and what is their relation to the proletarians?
    7. What is the problem with "property"? all property?
    8. What is the foundation of human culture?
    9. What is the proletarian programme (to borrow the Brit spelling)?
    10. In the third section of the Manifesto, "Socialist and Communit Literature," what is Marx's main criticism of all other socialist or communist theories?
    11. A "manifesto" is a statement in support of a call to action: what is the call to action in Marx's manifesto? (Section four of the Manifesto).

    Videos of Mussolini and Hitler speeches

    Triumph of the Will

    Mussolini Speech against Germany

    Mussolini Rome Speech 1939

    Declaration of War Against Great Britain and France 1940

    Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Volume One, "Unlimited Power of the Majority in the United States, and its Consequences".

    Eighteenth Century (and Hobbes)

    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 alternative copy here.

    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).

    Madison's Federalist 10

    A few readings from Adam Smith

    David Hume, "Of the Origin of Government" and "Of the Original Contract"

    David Hume's essays

    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.

    Regarding Rousseau's concept of the General Will, there are two lines of inquiry: (1) what exactly is the General Will? and (2) how is the General Will actually determined. Keep in mind that Rousseau says in Book I, chapter 6, that the General Will is an expression of the "Sovereign," so his discussions of the nature of the Sovereign will relate directly to his conception of the General Will. Please review The Social Contract Book I, ch. 6 & 7 (assigned last week), and read Book II, ch. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8; Book III, ch. 11; and Book IV, ch. 1 & 2. Material about what the General Will essentially is can be found in I.6 & 7, II.1, 2, 3, & 4; and Book IV.1 (compare this to III.11). Material about how the General Will is determined can be found in Book I.6, II.3, 4, 7, IV.2.

    The term "General Will" seems to be a synonym to "the common good" or "the public good," but not quite. "Will" suggests a psychological function: people will certain things, or they have a strong will, a weak will, or they are willful. Whose will is the General Will? "General" suggests a contrast to "particular," but Rousseau discusses particular wills—the will of an individual or of a faction—the will of the majority, and he contrasts the General Will with the "will of all." Might the general will be the will of nobody in a society? Is a majority vote ever acceptable to Rousseau? Compare Rousseau's discussion of the General Will with Hume's comments on human nature in the opening paragraphs of his essay "On the Origin of Government."

    Rousseau says of his social contract formula, "the clauses of this contract are so determined by the nature of the act that the slightest modification would make them vain and ineffective," and thus not legitimate. Do you know of any country in existence today (or ever) that is built upon a Rousseauian social contract? If not, what does that imply about the legitimacy of all of the states and governments in existence now or ever?

    As you read the material about how the General Will is determined, list the conditions or requirements—the rules—Rousseau prescribes for the determining the General Will. What procedures must be followed? Why is a majority vote not sufficient? or is it?

    This is tricky stuff. Jotting down notes as you go along will help. You will think that you understand Rousseau's idea after you have read a few chapters, and then he makes some contradictory statements that make your understanding disappear like smoke. Or the Cheshire cat.

    Aristotle is an arch representative of the classical tradition in philosophy. Mill is an arch example of the epicurean or modern tradition. What's the diff between their conceptions of ethics?

    Willi Boskovsky (1974)