Basic assignment: Write a 6-9 page (typed, double-spaced) paper explaining and supporting your position on some issue raised by one of the texts we have read by or about Aristotle.
Some guidelines:
Your paper should contain your thoughts and opinions, not just Plato’s or Aristotle’s or someone else’s. Tell me what you think, not just what other people have said.
At the same time, I do want you to address the texts we are studying: your topic should be reasonably related to something some ancient philosopher said, and your paper should take some care to show that you have understood what that writer said. Give references to the text to support your interpretation of their view(s).
Be sure that the question or issue your paper is addressing is clear and well focused.
Be sure that you have provided a clear statement of your position on that issue (or your answer to that question).
In addition to explaining what you think, your paper should contain reasons why you take the position you do. Your main job is to explain why a reasonable person should agree with the opinion or position you are expressing.
Whatever your position is, there will be other points of view on the issue or topic you are discussing. (This is philosophy!) So, include in your paper at least one (more would be better) objection to your view and a reply to that objection. How might someone who disagreed with you criticize your argument? And how can you respond to that criticism?
You are not required (or encouraged) to consult any other sources besides those already assigned for class reading. If you do use any other sources, give them credit for whatever you take from them: list them in a bibliography at the end of your paper and give specific references for any ideas you have borrowed. (Use the standard numbering system for your references to Plato’s and Aristotle’s texts.)
Some possible topics:
Whether Aristotle’s doctrine of the four kinds of causes provides a good account of the nature of things or of the nature of scientific explanation.
Whether Aristotle’s account of the soul provides a good solution to the mind-body problem.
Whether Aristotle has good criticisms of Plato’s theory of Forms.
Whether Aristotle is right to say that virtue and vice are ‘up to us’.
The apparent disagreement between Socrates and Aristotle about whether there is such a thing as ‘weakness of the will’ (akrasia). How does Socrates argue that weakness of the will is impossible? How does Aristotle explain its possibility? Who has the better case?
What, according to Aristotle, is ‘the function’ of a human being? How does he use this idea to define happiness for a human being (and, thus, ‘the human good’)? What do you think of his definition?
Are some virtues non-relative, i.e., necessary to any person who wants to lead a good life, regardless of cultural differences? Or are virtues always relative to one’s time and place? Consider some of the virtues on Aristotle’s list. How might Aristotle defend the claim that the virtues are the same in every time and place? How does this fit with his discussion of the differences in the virtues of men and women and masters and slaves?
Discuss Aristotle’s ‘doctrine of the mean’? Is it true? Useful? [A good discussion will include a clear and concise account of what Aristotle means when he says that virtue lies in a mean and that the mean is ‘relative to us’?]
How does Aristotle argue that a life of study (theoria) is the best life for a human being? Is he right?
Whether Aristotle, in Book II of the Politics, has good criticisms of Plato/Socrates’ account of the ideal city.
The ancients’ defense of slavery (most extensively, Aristotle’s). Where and how does it fail, if it does?
Plato’s criticisms of democracy as a form of government vs. Aristotle’s (qualified) defense.
Epicureans say that the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain is the basic and natural human motivation. The Stoics say that it is the urge for self-preservation. Discuss.
Chrysippus tries to reconcile human freedom with universal causal determinism. Explain and discuss his view.
For Epicurus virtue is valuable only as a means to pleasure. For Aristotle and for the Stoics virtue is itself the highest good (and a life of virtue is a happy life). Discuss.
Discuss the stoic account of happiness. Are they right to claim that virtue is the whole of happiness (so that ‘external’ events are irrelevant)? To say that we will be happy only if we ‘extirpate’ our passions?
Compare and contrast the Stoic account of virtue with Aristotle’s. Which is better?
Do the Stoics have a coherent account of “living in accord with nature”?
So the skeptics give us good reasons to suspend all beliefs?
Is the Skeptical position practically tenable? Can one live without accepting some beliefs?
Which of the Hellenistic schools gives us the best philosophy to live by? (Explain your choice.)