The Assignment for this class is supposed to be an interpretation of the relevant text(s) based on your careful reading of those texts. You defend your interpretation by providing the relevant textual evidence and analyzing it in order to build up a logical case for your interpretation.
You should not use secondary sources (i.e. sources other than the philosophical text we are reading)
the Assignment must not have any extraneous material in them, for example, praise of the author and his importance to western philosophy, or historical examples that buttress the argument. Your Assignment are not supposed to be opinion pieces or personal philosophical statements. The goal of the assignments is for you to think critically about the arguments of the author in question based on your own reading of the text.
Assignment: Write a 1000 word count (= 3-4 pages, double-spaced) on one of the following topics:
1. Consider the following quote: “And furthermore, one should not care about incurring the reputation of those vices without which it is difficult to save one’s state; for if one considers everything well, one will find something appears to be virtue, which if pursued would be one’s ruin, and something else appears to be vice, which if pursued results in one’s security and well-being” (Machiavelli, The Prince). How does Machiavelli argue a prince should act? Should he act this way openly or put forward a different appearance? Explore the idea of appearance vs. reality in Machiavelli’s The Prince.
2. In The Prince, Machiavelli writes: “And let no one resist my opinion on this with that trite proverb, that whoever founds on the people founds on mud.” According to Machiavelli, how should a prince “found on the people”? How does his advice ultimately benefit the people?
3. Hobbes claims that there is no real justice without law. In your Assignmentyou should explore Hobbes’ conception of law. How does he define law, how is its meaning determined, and what is his point when he says that the laws of nature are not, strictly speaking, really laws? What is required for something to truly be a law? Does his view of law and justice necessitate certain aspects of his political theory/regime?
Make sure to choose only one topic.