Write an essay of approximately 5-7 double-spaced pages on one of the topics listed below. This assignment is designed to have you think about an argument you have read in Plato’s Republic. You are not to consult or refer to secondary sources. Rather, you are asked to develop your own reasoned argument in response to the proposition or contention which the essay topics contain.
Your essay should refer to passages in the text of The Republic which illuminate the argument you are addressing. All direct quotes and paraphrases must be appropriately cited. The most convenient way of citing a passage in the text in a political theory essay is to use the MLA citation style which consists of parenthetical in-text citations and a Texts Cited or Bibliography at the end of the paper. In-text citations would look like this: (Plato 2011, 114). The Texts Cited or Bibliography entry at the end of your essay should look like this: Plato 2011, The Republic in Michael L. Morgan, ed. Classics of Moral and Political Theory. Indianapolis, Indiana: Hackett Publishing Co.
In your essay, you should state clearly what it is you are arguing for or against. That means starting with a statement of the problem/point-of-view you are addressing and an indication of the position you are taking regarding this problem/point of view. This latter is your thesis statement. In the remainder of the essay, you should work to substantiate your own position with reference both to the text and to whatever reasons you have for holding to the position you have staked out at the beginning. You should conclude your essay with a summation of the reason or reasons you think your position is valid or has been demonstrated by the argument you have presented. Your essay is an exercise in analysis—you are asked to analyze an argument that Plato offers in the text. That means you should be able to summarize the argument accurately and respond to it with your own reasoned assessment of that argument.
choose any 1 of the topics below :
1. Thrasymachus maintains that justice is whatever is in the interest of the stronger, that is, those in power determine what is right and wrong according to what they perceive to be to their advantage. Socrates gets Thrasymachus to agree that ruling is an art, and that, as in all arts, the practitioner or craftsman is in first instance concerned with making the subject matter of the art (craft) the best it can be. Did Thrasymachus concede too much to Socrates? Can you construct a stronger argument in support of Thrasymachus’ position?
2. Plato’s treatment of women in The Republic is subject to varying interpretations. There are those who think he is a radical egalitarian when it comes to women in the polis. Others think he remains a conservative, unwilling to abandon traditional views of their character and role in society. Do you think Plato is radical or conservative in his views on women?
3. The Republic ostensibly is a book on politics in which Plato sketches the outline of an ideal political regime. But much of the dialogue aims at persuading Socrates’ conversation partners that a life of virtue—the cultivation of wisdom, courage, moderation, and justice—is what all individuals should aim at. Is The Republic really about politics or is it about morality and the responsibility of individuals to choose to live a good life?
4. Plato has a quarrel with poetry . In his ideal city he would have poets strictly censored. But it seems he is not entirely convinced by his own argument. In the end, he issues the following invitation: “All the same, let it be said that, if the imitative poetry that aims at pleasure has any argument to show it has a place in a well-governed city, we would gladly welcome it back, since we are well aware of being charmed by it ourselves.” What is Plato’s problem with poetry? Can you provide an argument in defence of the pleasures of poetry ?
5. When speaking of his ideal city, Plato makes a curious admission: “…there may perhaps be a model of it in the heavens for anyone who wishes to look at and to found on the basis of what he sees. It makes no difference at all whether it exists anywhere or ever will. You see, he [a philosopher] would take part in the politics of it alone, and of no other.” If the ideal city can never be made real, what is the point of labouring over its construction in words?
