In Republic, Socrates and Thrasymachus represent two opposed views of justice: a transcendent Ideal (eidosobjective, ahistorical, independent of all context) versus “nothing other than the advantage of the stronger” (totally situated in relations of power). Must we choose between these options, or is there a third possibility?
Putting Republic into conversation with one of the followingApology-Crito, Antigone, or The Peloponnesian Warconsider whether your chosen text offers an alternative conception of justice: one that is neither transcendent nor reducible to power, but constituted through political relationships and practice. If you find such a third way, articulate what it is and how it differs from both Thrasymachus and Socrates. If you conclude that the options in Republic exhaust the possibilities, explain why the apparent alternative in your chosen text ultimately collapses into one of those positions. | Write an essay of about 1800-2000 words, double-spaced in 12-point font, addressing one of the following topics. Your essay must contain a clearly identifiable argument that explicitly answers all parts of one of these questions and is supported by plausible interpretation of lots of duly cited evidence from the text. The most important part of your argument should be stated concisely and compellingly in the last sentence of your first paragraph. Your task is to persuade a skeptical friend to agree with your interpretation.
As you’ll see, the prompts are complex. You’ll be discouraged if you expect yourself to grasp them immediately. Instead, you’ll need to study them, sit with them, grapple with them, and out of that process, begin your writing about the one that compels you most. They are designed to lead you toward more profound engagement with the material rather than to gratify our desires that things be easy, transparent, and quick.
Identify which topic youre addressing by retyping the question, single-spaced in 10-point font, before the first paragraph of your paper. Be sure to give your paper a meaningful title. We recommend that you avoid starting your essay with a dictionary definition or phrase like Throughout human history or Since the dawn of time….
You should convincingly present a counterargument in the second paragraph of your paper (required). How could a thoughtful and informed person reasonably disagree with your argument? What evidence would they present for their point of view? If you find it difficult to imagine how someone could disagree with you, you may be over-convinced of your argument and/or embarking on an obvious or trivial argument.
For more information on how to succeed, consult the rubric for evaluating this essay. Finally, check out my
Finally, compose your paper in Google Docs from the beginning of your process, and share that document with your TA when you submit your paper (or anytime before then).