Final Exam Guide

We are fast approaching the final exam and this post is intended to help you prepare.

Your final exam will be made up of three sections:

Section A has 10 questions worth 20 points

Section B has three short answer questions worth 30 points

Section C has 3 essay questions and you choose to answer only 2 (TWO)

The exam is out of 100 points and makes up 50% of your overall mark (grade).

Please note that your exam covers class topics/discussions and your assignment material.

As you begin preparing return to our online blog and read the opening posts. Be sure that you understand the difference between Political Philosophy and Political Thought.

Know how Political Philosophy came to be, by whom, and why.

Pay close attention to Machiavelli and the discussion of the "state of nature" as found in the work of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau.

If you have questions please see me after class or in my office (G06).

Study hard!

Assignment 2

Please write a thoughtful and persuasive essay that is no longer than 3 typed pages on the following hypothetical scenario:

You are a political philosopher who is tasked with defending Machiavelli's political thoughts as found in The Prince. Start by explaining why Machiavelli represents a distinctive break with the normative ideals of the classical writers we have studied (Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle).

Explain with examples why it is not advisable to just view Machiavelli's thinking as cruel and undemocratic.

End you essay with a thoughtful reflection on the assertion that Machiavelli is the founder of the modern state. What does this mean and how is it relevant to contemporary politics and its emphasis on Realpolitik?

Your essay is due in class (and I mean in class) on Monday October 5, 2009.

Late assignments will be penalized by 5 points per day without exception. And, do not even think about putting your assignment under my door.

Please check your work for spelling and grammar. If you quote someone or you are using a book and/or article to build your argument, cite the references in keeping with academic standards and the rules and regulations of North-West University.

Please note that plagiarism is an illegal form of stealing and will not be tolerated under any circumstances.

I know all of you are capable of excellent work. If you have questions please stop by my office (G06).

Have a reflective Heritage Day and enjoyable break!

Machiavelli: The Founder Of The Modern State

The Prince is a deceptively layered book that begs to be read several times. In fact, I expect that you will want to read it again even after you have finished this class. (Image Credit)

I say this because much of what we consider modern politics is rooted in the thinking that Machiavelli develops.

We ended the last post talking about Reakpolitic and its assertion for an amoral, if even immoral, politics aimed at power and survival.

The Prince is said, commonly, to be a book intended to ingratiate Machiavelli to Lorenzo de Medici who had regained power when the book was being written.

This may be so but we should be warned that Machiavelli is seemingly deceptive in that he aims the book at Lorenzo who inherits power but he also prefers a prince who grabs power via authority that is imposed.

In fact, Chapter 6 is entitled "Of New Principalities that are Acquired Through One's Own Arms and Virtue."

Was he deceiving Lorenzo de Medici? I think he was.

A big part of the character of a prince is about making something out of nothing. A man who is prudent and who can seize power and hold on to power.

Inside of this emphasis Machiavelli tells us that a prince must be ready at all times to go to war.

The powerful and prepared conquer and the weak and unprepared are conquered.

The latter part of this statement is a critique of Christianity that calls on people to be meek and mild. The prince cannot be meek or he will lose power and be dethroned.

A lot of what Machiavelli does in The Prince is to contradict and oppose the classical writers and the Christian church.

He uses the term Virtu as opposed to virtues. Virtu for him is about worldly glory, ambition, risk, aggressiveness, and above all, success.

Remember we talked about the term "dirty hands" as developed by Jean-Paul Satre in his 1948 play Les Mains Sales (which means dirty hands).

No-one should get involved in politics unless they are willing to have "dirty hands". The prince cannot worry about the moral thing to do or spend sleepless nights contemplating what Christianity may expect of him.

Morality, ethics, and religion cannot get into the way of interests. It is for this reason that we say Machiavelli is the founder of the modern state. As you know and expect, the modern state acts in is own narrow interests all the time.

No exceptions.

So politics is dirty and the prince must rise to the occasion and challenge pretenders to his throne by being even dirtier so to speak.

This does not mean that the prince should not appear to be religious, moral, or ethical. The issue of appearance must be aligned with interests.

In other words, if the prince can get his interests by being moral then that is alright. But if he has to be immoral to so then the choice is clear.

This explains the Machiavellian cliché that goes "the ends justifies the means".

But does this mean that the prince is a ruthless dictator who uses cruelty all the time?

Not really. Machiavelli tells us about "cruelty well used" and with judgment that is balanced between what is needed and what must be achieved.

A prudent prince will know what that judgment should look like. So the prince will be warlike and aggressive but even say that he trusts in God if it meets his interests.

Remember how Machiavelli retells the story of David and Goliath. He arms David with a knife! It seems he is saying that the prince should trust in God but bring a knife just in case.

In these terms Machiavelli is very different than our classical political philosophers.

He sees nothing wrong in being deceptive, in lying, assassinating enemies even, if power can be preserved and expanded.

In these terms he goes beyond the worry about a moral politics or the concern with justice as an organic principle of bringing the soul and politics into alignment.

His world is the world as it exists. A world where people are evil rather than good. A world where we front about good but are mostly bad.

Machiavelli may even be said to be an opponent of our common humanity. But is he in total?

We have talked at length about the characteristics of his prince and the virtu he seeks or proposes.

It must, however, be said that Machiavelli also sought to place the prince as protector of the common people. It is here that he saw the legitimacy of the prince located.

He, however, does not ignore the rich and powerful elite. He wants the prince to know them and even engage them if even with an eye on watching them closely.

In the end, he is somewhat of a populist who needs careful consideration before we just toss him aside into the looney bin.

His influence is very strong and there are countless examples that draw on his assessment of what interests should look like in politics.

Machiavelli may come across as distasteful and despicable but he is hardly absent in modern politics even if the current characters are hardly aware of his influence.

Tracing Machiavelli

Machiavelli was born in Florence which was a republic and city state. He lived and worked in Florence at the height of the Renaissance.

He looked at the Ancient or classical writings (those of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle) and introduced what we call modernity today.

His ambition was to do for political theory what his contemporaries Leonardo Da Vinci and Michelangelo did for the arts (painting and sculpture).

(Statue of Machiavelli in Uffizi: Image Credit)

I have mentioned in class that Machiavelli lived during a vibrant time of tumultuous change and political upheaval.

He grew up under the rule of the powerful Medici family and saw them deposed by a Christian Dominican friar called Savonarola.

The friar tired to press Christian values in Florence but his rule was short lived and he was excommunicated by Pope Alexander VI and executed May 23, 1498.

A republic was re-established and Machiavelli held a kind of diplomatic post (the Secretary to the Second Chancery of the Signoria) for 14 years (1498-1512) until the Medici family returned to power toppling the republic once again.

Lorenzo Medici fired Machiavelli and forced him into exile after a period of imprisonment. Lorenzo Medici is said to have thought that Machiavelli had plotted against his family. (Lorenzo Medici: Image Credit)

Machiavelli then went and lived on a small farm he owned and it is here where he wrote The Prince, The Discourses on Livy, The Art of War, and many letters on politics to friends and associates.

By 1519 Machiavelli won some measure of favour and the Medici family even asked him to write a history of Florence.

The Medici were, however, again deposed in 1527 and Machiavelli was left unemployed and without much political influence as he was now distrusted by the republican government because of his tied to the Medici family.

I guess there is some irony in this twist of fate.

Machiavelli died in Florence on June 21, 1527. He, however, lived long enough to witness Rome falling to a rather hapless Spanish infantry.

His writings gained notoriety in the latter part of the 16th century. For some, his works were considered to be too dangerous for common consumption and they were banned by the church in 1564.

For our purposes, we are focusing on The Prince and its teachings. We begin by making the assertion that Machiavelli is the founder of the modern state.

This assertion is juxtaposed with the manner in which he reoriented the focus on what the nature of political rule, and by implication, its leaders should do to rule.

Machiavelli rejected the idealistic/normative assertions on Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle.

We have studied in some detail the emphasis of these classical writers and find them to focus on virtues that draw on philosophic purity and morality.

Socrates, you may remember, sought a leadership made up of philosophers who debated the esoteric content of politics and leadership.

Plato and Aristotle spend an inordinate amount of time on the nature of justice and the ideals that underpin just rule and just rulers.

Machiavelli is the most prominent thinker in the western tradition to break with the normative political discourse of the classical thinkers we have studied.

He imposes an abrupt kind of politics that can be defined as being skeptical and even obsessed with things deviant and evil.

He calls on us to consider politics as an all-out struggle for power. This struggle is real and cannot be avoided or made nicer with appeals to our ethics and morality.

This is what the term Realpolik seeks to describe.

We turn our attention to Realpolik and its amoral politics.

From Aristotle To Machiavelli

Those of you who have been attending class regularly know that we have covered the aspects of Aristotle's political philosophy that are germane to our introductory class.

I have mentioned that this material will most likely form part of your final exam. You are expected to read Aristotle's Politics I and II.

Pay careful attention to the differences in emphasis between Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates.

Remember that Aristotle studied at Plato's university, the Academy, for 20 years and left only after Plato died.

Aristotle is thought to be more grounded than Plato in his many academic works. He was less concerned with recruiting philosophers than Plato. Instead he was concerned with comparing the life of citizens. Toward this aim he collected 158 constitutions.

In this sense, he may even be thought of as one of the first comparative political scientists.

It is most important that you understand Aristotle's assertion that "man is a political animal." Also, connect this assertion to what he defined as the "Zoo Politikon".

Finally, pay special attention to the terms LOGOS and TELOS.

The image that appears above is a "marble bust of Aristotle. Roman copy after a Greek bronze original by Lysippus c. 330 BC." (Image Credit)

We are now moving onto Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli (3 May 1469 – 21 June 1527).

Machiavelli, born in Florence (Italy), is often said to be a founder of modern political science. The image here is a head-crop "1500 portrait of Niccolò Machiavelli by Santi di Tito" (Image Credit).

You are expected to read Machiavelli's The Prince which was published in 1532.

See syllabus for all relevant links and study hard!

Help With Reading Plato's Republic

Plato's Republic is no easy read. Do not despair. You are not alone in wondering what it all means. It will take many readings, most of which will happen over the course of your life, to grasp most of the themes and meanings contained in the book.

The Republic should not be read as if it is a book offering solutions to political problems. It is, rather, like a piece of literature. It is perhaps useful to view it as a play, a great drama play that is.

That said, turn to this useful site to help you put together the framework for what we will discuss in class. See The Classic Pages: Plato.

Wikipedia.org also has a useful general discussion of The Republic to help you get started.

As you make your way through your readings here please make sure that you pay attention to how Plato (via Socrates) defines justice, a just/ideal Polis, and his creation of three categories in the ideal state.

Also, think through his critique of the 4 bad kinds of regimes. They are: Timarchy; Oligarchy; Democracy; and Tyranny.

Which kind of government does Plato say is best?

Good luck.

Picture Credit

Plato's Apology of Socrates

Plato's Apology of Socrates is said to be one of the best introductions to the study of Political Philosophy (P/Phil).

There are two main reasons for this assertion. The first assertion is that Socrates is shown defending his way of life and politics.

Second, the Apology shows the relationship of P.Phil to the Polis, its laws and its political power.

We should not that Socrates used the word apology, as derived from the Greek word "apologia" to mean a defense and not as an apology for doing wrong.

The trial is not merely about Socrates but also the notions/ideas of P.Phil and what Socrates defines as the worthy cause of the "examined life".

The trial takes place in 399 BC just a short time after the Peloponnesian War. Athens is unique at this time because it is considered a democracy.

Socrates is charged with treason. He is said to have negatively influenced and corrupted the youth of Athens and shown disrespect toward the Gods. Socrates is found guilty and sentenced to death by a jury vote of 280 to 221 (later reconfirmed by more than a two thirds majority).

The insert picture depicts The Death of Socrates by Jacques-Louis David 1787 (Credit).

Socrates defense, in part, is that he has acted on a prophecy by the oracle at Delphi which said he was wisest of all men. He was thus merely question those who were acting as if they were wise.

A common reading of the Apology privileges the conflictual relationship between freedom of expression and the laws of Athens. Socrates is said to be treasonous because he criticizes Athenian democracy and even supports its enemy, Sparta.

But we should note that Socrates is not found to be calling for unlimited freedom of expression and speech.

Instead, he is found calling on Athens to improve itself and to move beyond its arrogant belief that its power allowed it to do as it pleased. In a clear sense, Plato was pressing Athenian society and its political rulers to "examine" themselves to find a better justice.

He thus irritated the rulers.

For Socrates the "examined life" is the best possible form of life because it constantly seeks to improve notions of justice and rights. Those who do not "examine life" are not worthy.

"The unexamined life is not worth living", he says in defiance.

Much of what he is pressing toward is about perfecting life. Beyond seeking perfection Socrates was also asking who has the right to educate future leaders about running the Polis.

This question about education is a common thread in the works of Plato. It would appear that the right kind of education would not merely reproduce like-types but rather it would develop a thinking toward "examinining life" toward improvement.

The fundamental question we can extract from Socrates insistence is who should govern? What should leaders look like in terms of substance, politics, and thinking?

Athenian democracy is put on trial by Socrates. He is questioning the very notions held dear by Athens.

And it is a critique he levels at public officials. Socrates says: " ... if someone who really fights for justice is going to preserve himself even for a short time, it is necessary for him to lead a private, rather than a public life."

Socrates thus sees his role as a wise philosopher outside of the realm of public life. He claims that he seeks to awaken the state and, thereby, improve its condition via virtuous action.

The jury rejects his argument and he reacts by saying that they harm themselves more than they do him because they are ignorant of the outcome of their actions.

For Socrates the pursuit of wisdom and virtue is a means of improving society. He, the wise philosopher, seeks not to do wrong because he seeks wisdom to improve life and the living conditions of all.

Good and justice are thus found in the pursuit of knowledge. Those who know cannot do wrong because they know better, to put it simply.

You should note that though Socrates is given the death penalty he was asked to propose an alternative punishment. Since he does not accept that he did wrong he asks instead for a reward.

Plato's Apology describes Socrates as a radical philosopher calling society in question. He is demanding a revolution in Athenian life and civic culture.

His argument is that Athenian citizens are living worthless lives in that they are not engaged in "examining life" for the purpose of moving toward perfection.

Their lives are, therefore, without value.

He thus accepts his fate because he is not fearful of death. He does not know what death holds so to fear death would be a kind of false consciousness.

Instead, Socrates hold on to his positions because he knows they are right and divine and he acts in accordance.

He is compelled to do so as a political philosopher.

(Please begin reading Plato's Republic)

August 13

The Athenian Socrates (469-399 BC) is generally considered to be the founder of Political Philosophy (P.Phil). The bust pictured here is a depiction of Socrates found at the Louvre Museum in Paris. (Credit)

Socrates taught Plato, and Plato taught Aristotle.

The works of Plato and Aristotle are the oldest known works devoted to P.Phil (in the Western tradition).

We know Socrates through Plato. Socrates did not write one book or letter, or least nothing can be attributed to him today.

Socrates is important because he is the first to ask questions about political nature and justice. He wondered about the form and character of things and he became engrossed in questions about the "idea of justice" or "natural rights" of men.

One cannot understand the "nature of man" without understanding the "nature of society".

For Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, the Polis or City-State was the best regime/government to be found because it represented and captured the "nature of man" and the "nature of society".

The City-State in this conceptualization was not seperate from society. State and society was considered to much the same thing.

This is very different than the time we live in as mentioned in class. The state is hardly the same thing as society.

So for Socrates, knowing society's nature is knowing the state's nature.

In these terms, the City-State (Polis) encapsulated justice and it was considered to be the highest form of civilization.

The tribe or Empire, both regimes were known to Socrates, was considered a lesser regime and even incapable of high culture and civilization.

The questions about about justice, liberty, and the rights of man are more conducive in the City-State.

Assignment 1

In Plato's Republic he divides people (society) into distinct categories aimed at creating a just society. Discuss the make-up of these categories and explain how each relates to the other categories and for what reason(s).

Also discuss Plato's views on a temperate state and individual and his views on an intemperate state and individual.

End your essay with a thoughtful and careful analysis of the value of Plato's thinking about the nature of people and their role in a just society and state.

Please note that all assignment essays must be typed (word processed), and checked for spelling and language. You must refer to the reading list, to lectures, and class discussions in your answer.

All late assignments will be penalized by 5 points per day, no exceptions.

ASSIGNMENT 1 DUE DATE: Hand in your assignment in class on Monday August 31.

Introduction

What is Political Philosophy and how does it differ from political thought, for example? This is an appropriate place to start thinking about our intellectual journey this term.

Political Philosophy (P.Phil) is distinct from political thought in that it refers to a very specific intellectual tradition that can be traced to the Ancient Greeks. In this traditional view, the Athenian Socrates (469-399 BC) is the founder of P.Phil.

Political thought on the other hand is more general in its reference to thoughts about political life.

P.Phil is also a very important subfield of the field of Political Science. Some would say that it is the most important because it is the oldest and it introduces the very conceptual basis of how we study politics.

This term we will busy ourselves with the major thinkers of the Western tradition. Thinkers like Plato and Aristotle to Machiavelli, Hobbes, Hegel, De Tocqueville, among others.

We will, time permitting, also familiarize ourselves with modern thinkers who are relevant to postcolonial Africa and its diaspora. Thinkers like Frantz Fanon, Steve Biko, and Edward Said, for example.

The purpose being to apply what we are gathering from the discussion of classical questions about the nature of politics, power, and justice.

I mentioned in class on August 6th that P.Phil is not about finding definitive answers. Instead, P.Phil offers us ideas and thinking that prick and prod at questions which are universal to the human condition and its many forms of political association. This is true across time.

The first big question that we will be thinking about is the nature of justice. This is one of the most important and basic areas of thought that Socrates addresses.

We ask about justice because of the concern with the all important questions that pertain to the best kind of regime (political system/government). Regimes also refer more broadly to systems that relate to how people live, their way of life, what they belive in and how they defend these values.

So, we stand at the very beginning and your task is to read the prescribed texts that are relevant now. These are: Plato's Apology, Crito and the Republic.

Please follow the prescribed readings and links as indicated in the syllabus.

Syllabus:Hpol 121

Course Title: Political Philosophy (HPOL 121)

Purpose: To introduce students to the study of Political Philosophy

Outcomes: Students will become familiar with the basic texts that inform the study of Political Philosophy. As the course progresses students will be able to distinguish between the period writings of thinkers in the Western tradition such as Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Hegel, Marx, among others.

Students will also be exposed to selected thinkers and texts that influence the African and African diaspora experience throughout the term. These include W.E.B DuBois, Kwame Nkrumah, Frantz Fanon, Steve Biko, Nelson Mandela, and Edward Said.

Delivery Modes: Lectures and Presentations

Assessment Modes: 1 Test - 20%; 2 Assignments - 40%; Final Exam - 40%

Selected Course Material (Reading List Links Provided Below):

Plato, Trial and Death of Socrates
Plato, Republic
Aristotle, Politics
Machiavelli, The Prince
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan
John Locke, Second Treatise of Government
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Political Writings
Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

(Lecture Topics)
1. Introduction to Political Philosophy (August 6)
2. Socratic Citizenship and Plato's Apology (Read the Apology)
3. Socratic Citizenship and Plato's Crito (Read the Crito)
4. Philosophers and Kings in Plato's Republic (Read I-II of the Republic)
5. Plato's Republic (Read sections III-IV)
6. Plato's Republic (Read sections V-VI)
7. Aristotle's Mixed Regime and Rule of Law (Read I and III of the Politics)
8. Aristotle (Read IV and VII)
9. Nicolo Machiavelli's Re-ordering (Read Chapters 1-12 of The Prince)
10. Nicolo Machaivelli's Re-ordering (Read Chapters 13-26)
11. Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan (Read Chapters 1-16 of Leviathan)
12. Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan (Read Chapters 17-31)
13. Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan (Read A Review and Conclusion)
14. John Locke's (Read Chapters 1-5 of the Second Treatise of Civil Government)
15. John Locke (Read Chapters 6-12)
16. John Locke (Read Chapters 13-19)
17. Jean-Jacques Rousseau (Read the Preface, Part 1, and Part 2 of Discourse on the Origin and the Foundations of Inequality Among Men)
18. Jean-Jacques Rousseau Social Contract (Read Books I-II of The Social Contract)
19. Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America (Read the author's Introduction)
20. Alexis de Tocqueville (Read Chapter XV entitled Unlimited Power Of The Majority In The United States, And Its Consequences)
21. Contextualizing Poltical Theory and Finding Place/Space for W.E.B DuBois, Kwame Nkrumah, Frantz Fanon, Steve Biko, Nelson Mandela, and Edward Said
22. Consclusion: Political Theory and The Future of Political Science

Please note that the content and due dates for the two (2) assignments will be announced in class. Late assignments will be penalized by 5 points per day.

Acknowledgements: This syllabus and course content is seriously indebted to Professor Steven B. Smith of Yale University and his work with the Yale Open Courses.

Mention must also be made of the web access provided by ebooks at The University of Adelaide Library in South Australia.

Please report any faulty or dead links to me at: nwupolitics@gmail.com or in my office G06 in the Department of Peace Studies and International Relations.

Dr. Laher

Welcome Students

Welcome to our Political Philosophy (HPOL 121) blog!

The purpose here is to help you have access to the material discussed in class. As you know we face challenges in finding the appropriate textbooks and course material.

Please check in here regularly through the term for summarized class notes and links to web-based texts and other material.

Due dates for assignments, tests, and the schedule for the final exam will be posted here.

I have closed the comment facility. You can reach me in class, my office (G06) or at this email address: nwupolitics@gmail.com

If you have suggestions to improve this blog please feel free to bring it to my attention.

Thank you and welcome.

Dr. Laher