Colby College
Department of Government
Government 474: Plato
and Rousseau
Tuesdays 1:00-3:30 pm
Fall 2003
259 Miller
Library
872-3681
Office Hours: W 1:00-2:30, F 10:00-noon
No attentive reader can miss the similarities
between Rousseau's Emile and
Plato's Republic. Both works confront the same fundamental problem: In Emile, Rousseau asks whether a man "raised uniquely
for himself" will be good for others also? In the Republic, Plato considers whether justice is choiceworthy
for its own sake. To make sure we do not miss
the connection, Rousseau explicitly draws attention to the similarities and
differences between his project and Plato's. Plato
answers this fundamental question about justice by means of an investigation
into the best regime and into the curriculum according to which its guardians
will be publicly educated. Rousseau addresses
it by portraying for us the private education of one ordinary man. To "get an idea of the public education," he writes,
one should, "read Plato's Republic. It is not at all
a political work, as think those who judge books only by their titles. It is the most beautiful educational treatise ever
written." Actually both books are about both
education and politics; we must not judge Rousseau's
work by its subtitle, On Education, any more than we should be misled by Plato's
title, Republic. We may even doubt the significance of the distinction
between public and domestic education since the Emile ends with an account of politics that justifies
the acceptance of civic obligations whereas the action of the Republic amounts to a domestic education delivered by
Socrates to a few friendly interlocutors, and its narrative concludes with
the image of Odysseus happily choosing to be reborn as a "private man who
minds his own business."
This course examines in detail these two masterpieces
of political philosophy. By the end of the semester,
you should have attained a solid understanding of the major claims made in
the Republic and Emile and achieved a substantial appreciation of those
works' enduring claims to greatness. You should
also have developed the ability to advance a sustained interpretive argument
based on your own reading of the texts and a critical assessment of some
of the major works in the secondary literature on Plato and Rousseau.
Course
Requirements and Grading
This is a senior seminar in political theory. Seminars are by nature cooperative ventures; their success depends upon everyone's hard work and
willingness to share ideas and questions with others.
It is therefore expected that you will have doneÑand thought
aboutÑthe readings before coming to class. Even
when you have not written anything for a particular class, you should be sufficiently
familiar with the readings to be able to understand the presentations and
to ask intelligent questions of the presenters.
Grades will
be determined according to the following formula:
Presentation papers (30%) -- Two presentations are required: one should be delivered before
the fall break and one after; one must be about
Plato's Republic, the other
about Rousseau's Emile. Topics for the presentations are suggested on the
syllabus; you may choose a different topic if
you wish, but such topics must be approved in advance.
The recommended topics require you to present your own interpretation
of a particularly significant passage from one of the major texts in the
class. In the presentation, you should make reference
to at least one secondary work; your presentation
should not merely be a summary of someone else's argument, but rather should
develop your own account of the assigned issues. It
will usually be helpful for you to have prepared a handout for distribution
(or, at a minimum, an outline for the board) which lays out your main claims. Each presentation should last 10-15 minutes, and
you should expect to be able to answer questions about your argument.
In addition, you must hand in a 5-7 page paper based on the presentation by 4 pm on the Friday following your
presentation. You may, and are indeed strongly encouraged, to revise your initial ideas in light of what
you learn in seminar when you deliver the oral presentation. Note finally that one of the presentation papers may
be used as a part of your final paper.
Response papers (15%) -- You must write
at least five response papers (2-3 pages long); topics
are suggested on the syllabus, below (you may also write on topics of your
own choosing, as long as these are approved by me in advance). If you write more than five, the best five grades
will be counted. Response papers should present
your own answers to the questions they address; it
is not recommended that you make reference to the secondary literature in
trying to answer them.
Participation and Attendance (15%) --
Attendance at all seminar meetings is expected. For each absence
(no matter the reason), your participation grade will be reduced. Students who miss three classes will ordinarily be
expelled from the class with a failing grade.
Final Paper (40%) -- A paper of 20-25
pages in length will be due during the reading period at the end of the semester; a satisfactory paper for this class will satisfy
the Government department writing requirement. The
paper will develop a complex, interpretive account of the argument of one
or both of the works studied. (For example, one
paper topic might be: Rousseau's moral psychology
departs from Plato's in these crucial respects [x, y, and z], and is better
than Plato's because it can account for these phenomena [a, b, c, etc.],
which on Plato's account had remained unclear.) You
may use your presentations and response papers (as appropriate) to help you
identify a topic and to refine your argument.
In order that
you have sufficient guidance in preparing your papers, I am requiring that
you submit two preliminary versions of the paper to me well in advance of
the final deadline, as follows:
Prospectus (5-8 pages) -- due Friday, Nov 7
Rough draft of paper -- due Monday, Dec 1
Completed paper (20-25 pages) -- due Tuesday,
Dec 14
You will begin
work on your final paper by writing a five-page essay in which you reconstruct
a crucial argument or two in Plato and/or Rousseau. This
paper should be prepared without making special reference to the secondary
literature. I will comment on your paper and
suggest further questions and areas for further research.
The next stage of research should involve making reference to at least
three works (articles or book chapters) in the secondary literature. As you prepare your next draft, you will want to
show how the scholars have interpreted the passages you are examining and
indicate how your account differs from theirs and indicate why your view is
better.
Required Books
The following
books are recommended for purchase and have been ordered by the Colby bookstore:
Plato. Four Texts
on Socrates.
Trans. by Thomas G. West and Grace Starry West.
Cornell University Press. 1984.
_____. The Republic of Plato. Trans. by Allan
Bloom. Basic Books. 1968.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques.
Emile, or On Education. Trans. by Allan
Bloom. Basic Books. 1979.
_____. The Discourses
and Other Early Political Writings. Trans. by Victor
Gourevitch. Cambridge University Press. 1997.
Schedule
of Readings
Sept 9:
Philosophy and Politics, Ancient
and Modern
Required reading:
Plato, Apology
of Socrates to the Jury (entire)
Rousseau, Discourse
on the Sciences and Arts (entire)
Rousseau, Discourse
on Inequality (entire)
Sept 16:
Philosophy and the Problems
of Human Life
Required reading:
Republic, 327a-368c
Emile, 33-74
Presentation and Response
paper topics:
Plato: (1) What is Thrasymachus' account of justice?
How is it different from the views of Cephalus and Polemarchus? Is it coherent?
(2) How is Thrasymachus "tamed" by Socrates?
(3) In what terms do Glaucon and Adeimantus praise injustice? How is their praise of injustice different from Thrasymachus'? How and why do their speeches differ from one another?
Rousseau: (1) What
is Rousseau's critique of his contemporaries, whom he derides as "bourgeois"? How does the critique in Emile resemble that of the Discourse on Inequality? How do the two
accounts differ?
(2) What is the goal of Emile's education?
(3) What is Rousseau's definition of "nature"?
What is the "education of nature"? In what
way will Emile be a "man of nature"?
Sept 23:
Rousseau's "Negative Education"
of emile
Required reading:
Emile, 77-163
Presentation and Response
paper topics:
(1) What is the "negative
education" Rousseau proposes? Why does he propose
it? How is it like the early education of the
guardians? unlike?
(2) Why does Rousseau insist that children not be taught to read when
they are very young?
(3) What is the point of the various games and exercises to which Emile
is introduced?
Sept 30:
The "Negative Education" of
Plato's Guardians
Required reading:
Republic, 368c-417a
Presentation and Response
paper topics:
(1) Why does Socrates propose the city-soul analogy?
Is the analogy sound? (in what ways?)
(2) What is the point of the guardians' learning gymnastic?
(3) What is the point of the guardians' learning music? In what ways does Socrates propose censoring music
and the poets? Why?
(4) What is the "noble lie"? At whom is
the lie directed? What is the point of the lie? Why
is it necessary? In what way is the lie noble
(or beautiful)?
Oct 7:
Plato on Justice in the City
and the Soul
Required reading:
Republic, 419a-445e
Presentation and Response
paper topics:
Plato: (1) What are the parts of the soul? What arguments does Socrates use to establish the
truth of his account? Are those arguments sound?
(2) What are the virtues (courage, wisdom, moderation, justice) in
this city? What are they in individual souls? Why doesn't this account of the virtues fully answer
Glaucon's challenge to Socrates (i.e., why does the Republic not end at the conclusion of Book IV?)
Oct 14:
Rousseau on Justice in the
City and the Soul
Required reading:
Emile, 165-253
Presentation and Response paper topics:
Rousseau: (1) What is "amour-propre"? What are its effects? In what ways is it a force for bad in the soul? a force for good? Why
is its emergence in the soul of Emile so important as to count as a "second
birth"? How is amour-propre like and unlike Plato's thumos?
(2) What moral lessons does Emile learn at this stage in his education? How does he learn them? What
virtues does he possess by the end of this section of the text? Rousseau writes on page 253 that Emile now knows,
"the true principles of the just, the true models of the beautiful, [etc.]
...." Why does the book not end here?
Oct 21:
No Class -- Fall Break
Oct 28:
Educating Philosopher-Kings
Required reading:
Republic, 449a-541b
Presentation and Response paper topics:
Plato: (1) Why are philosopher-kings
necessary? Of what do they possess knowledge? What education must they have received in order to
attain that knowledge?
(2) Consider the image of the cave. In what way is the city said to be like the cave? What do the parts of this extended simile signify? How is the image of the cave related to the divided
line? to the sun?
(3) What are the ideas, and what role do
they play in the overall argument of the Republic?
Nov 4:
Emile's Virtue
Required reading:
Emile, 313-355, 406-450, 471-480
Presentation and Response paper topics:
Rousseau: (1) What is virtue? How
is it related to the virtues? to conscience? Why is it the last lesson Emile learns?
(2) What is the point
of the love story in Books IV-V? Why does the
Tutor tell Emile about Sophie, and why do they go together in search of her? What makes him worthy of her love?
Why must Emile leave her? What does he
learn about himself during his absence from her?
Nov 7 (Fri): Five
page draft/prospectus of final paper due in Miller 259
Nov 11:
Women and the Family
Required reading:
Republic 449a-471e
Emile 357-441, 475-480
Presentation and Response paper topics:
Plato: (1) What are Socrates' arguments for the equality
of women and for the communism of women and children?
Are they serious? or is Socrates' purpose
here ironic? Are these institutions oppressive? Or do they make possible the attainment of real human
goods?
Rousseau: (1) What
are Rousseau's arguments for the "traditional" sex-roled family? In what ways are men and women equal? In what ways are men and women complementary? Are these institutions oppressive?
Or do they make possible the attainment of real human goods?
Nov 18:
Democracy
Required reading:
Republic, 543a-592b
Emile, 441-471
Presentation and Response paper topics:
Plato: What is Plato's assessment of democracy? Is it really second-worst, as Socrates' argument suggests? Or can we find a certain defense of democracy inside
the critique?
Rousseau: What is Rousseau's assessment of democracy? In what way is the regime he defends democratic? In what ways is it not democratic?
How is Rousseau's account of democracy in effect an answer to Plato's?
Nov 25:
God
Required reading:
Republic, 595a-621d
Emile, 253-313
Presentation and Response paper topics:
Plato: What is Socrates' argument for the immortality of
the soul? Why does he introduce this and the subsequent
story of Er at the end of the Republic? What do these add
to the argument of the work as a whole?
Rousseau: What are the Savoyard Vicar's religious teachings? Does Rousseau accept them? What
role do these teachings play in the education of Emile?
What role does the Profession of Faith of the Savoyard Vicar play in
the argument of Emile as
a whole?
Dec 1 (Mon): Draft of final
paper due in Miller 259
Dec 2:
The Best Way of Life
Required reading:
Republic (review entire book)
Emile (review entire book)
Dec 9 (Tu):
Completed paper due in Miller 259
Recommended
Books
The standard
Greek edition of Plato's works is: Burnet, John,
ed. Platonis Opera. 5 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1900-7 (often called the
Oxford Classical Text [OCT]). The Republic appears in vol. 4.
The standard
French edition of Rousseau's works is: Bernard
Gagnebin and Marcel Raymond, eds. Oeuvres completes. 5 vols. Paris: Gallimard, Bibliotheque de la Pleiade, 1959-1997. Emile appears in vol. 4.
I. Plato
Julia Annas, An Introduction to Plato's Republic, Oxford University Press, 1981.
Allan Bloom, "Interpretive Essay" in Bloom, ed.,
The Republic of Plato, Basic
Books, 1968.
Terence Irwin, Plato's Ethics. Oxford University
Press. 1995.
Richard Kraut, Plato's Republic: Critical
Essays, Roman & Littlefield,
1997.
C.D.C. Reeve, Philosopher-Kings: The Argument
of Plato's Republic. Princeton
University Press, 1988.
Leo Strauss, "On Plato's Republic" in Strauss, The City and Man, University of Chicago Press, 1964.
Gregory Vlastos, Plato, A Collection of Critical
Essays, Volume II: Ethics, Politics, and Philosophy
of Art and Religion. University of Notre Dame Press, 1971.
Nicholas P. White, A Companion to Plato's
Republic.
Hackett. 1979.
II. Rousseau
Allan Bloom, "Introduction" in Bloom, ed., Emile
or On Education. Basic Books, 1979.
Laurence D. Cooper, Rousseau, Nature, and
the Problem of the Good Life.
Pennsylvania State University Press, 1999.
N.J.H. Dent, Rousseau: An Introduction to
his Psychological, Social and Political Theory, Basil Blackwell. 1988.
Roger Masters, The Political Philosophy of
Rousseau. Princeton University
Press, 1968.
Arthur Melzer, The Natural Goodness of Man: On the System of Rousseau's Thought. University of Chicago Press, 1990.
Joseph Reisert, Jean-Jacques Rousseau: A Friend
of Virtue. Cornell University
Press, 2003.
Patrick Riley, ed., The Cambridge Companion
to Rousseau. Cambridge University
Press, 2001.
Joel Schwartz, The Sexual Politics of Jean-Jacques
Rousseau. University of Chicago
Press, 1980.
Judith N. Shklar, Men and Citizens: A Study of Plato's Social Theory. Cambridge UP. 1985.
Penny Weiss, Gendered Community: Rousseau,
Sex, and Politics. NYU Press,
1993.
Robert Wokler, Rousseau. Past Masters Series.
Oxford University Press, 1995.