The Morality of Power What makes an expression of power good or just or proper according to our authors? What are the issues involved here (what defines good or just for example)? What makes an expression of power unjust, problematic, pathological, etc.? Look at the underlying issues.

Write an approximately 4 page (1000 words or so) paper that addresses one of the following topics below.

Regardless of what topic you choose, the idea is to work with material from (at least) 3 of our modules. This is a requirement. In addition to the primary texts, the supplemental readings and videos can also be used. Although you are free to use it, The Declaration of Independence does NOT count towards this requirement.

Note: There is a lot of overlap between these topics.

1. The Morality of Power
What makes an expression of power good or just or proper according to our authors? What are the issues involved here (what defines good or just for example)? What makes an expression of power unjust, problematic, pathological, etc.? Look at the underlying issues.

2. Morality
(A somewhat broader question than #1) How is what is good (and/or just) determined? Where does this evaluation come from? What issues underlie such an evaluation? What is actually being expressed? Is there a difference between what is truly good or moral and the ideas people have about what is good? What is the source of the confusion, here? Etc. (These issues are explicitly discussed in Chuang Tzu, Nietzsche, Plato, Wollstonecraft, and RAW and implicitly underlie the thoughts of Jefferson, Friedman, Marx, and Galileo. Pollan also speaks to this.)

3. Control
How do our authors understand and work with the idea of control? What lies at the heart of control? Why is there a desire to control? Whats the point? What are the dangers or problems with control? Etc.

4. Balance and/or Interplay (of Powers) (Very similar to morality of power and control questions, but approaches it from a somewhat different angle or entry point.)
Discuss how a proper balance (and/or interplay) of power would look like from 3 or more of our authors. What makes things go out of balance? What are the issues at play, here? What makes a manifestation of power pathological (problematic, delusory, weakening, self-defeating, etc.)? How does one right the ship or put things back into balance or their proper order? Is there even such a thing as a proper order?? As with all of these topics, look at the underlying issues.

5. Human Nature
How does human nature appear to (at least three of) our authors? How do these perspectives relate to one another? How they similar? How are they different? Do they complement or contradict each other? (Again, some of our authors discuss this directly [Nietzsche, Plato, Wollstonecraft, Pollan, Chuang Tzu]. For others, it may be more implicit [Jefferson and Friedman, Marx]).

6. The Common Good
Think about the common good in light of 3 or more of the authors weve discussed. How does Nietzsche, Plato, Jefferson, Wollstonecraft, Friedman, Marx, Pollan (Apollonian and Dionysian balance, monoculture, changes of consciousness), and Chuang Tzu seem to understand or approach this idea?

Again, Jefferson wouldnt count toward the 3 authors you need to cite. But, you can mention him in addition to these or work with his thinking through, say, Friedmans interpretation of it or how it connects with Wollstonecraft or contrasts with Plato or Nietzsche, etc.

Notes:

As youre thinking through these ideas, you might find it helpful to think backwards, to start from the problem move toward the solution. For example, Nietzsche, Wollstonecraft, Plato, Pollan, etc. all discuss pathological manifestations of power. It might be helpful (possibly) to start here, to start from the disease and then work your way to a healthier expression of power (to start with the confused or ignorant understanding and move to the clear understanding [as one could say in reference to the Chuang Tzu, Wollstonecraft, Plato, and Pollan]). In any case, this sort of exercise can be very helpful for your understanding.
PLEASE feel free to interpret words like balance, control, power, good, just, pathology, etc. broadly. Were playing with big ideas here not narrow, exclusive definitions. Try to think as broadly as you can with these ideas. Follow your intuition.
It might be helpful to make a list of the modules and think through how your topic works with these each of authors/units. Just let your mind play with these ideas for a while, relax, associate ideas, free-write Follow your intuition. It may lead you to some new, undiscovered territory. Of course, when you actually write the paper, youll have to translate your intuition into a coherent, supported argument. Play with these ideas, but then translate your broad, expansive (even groping) thinking into clear, sharp, supported arguments.
Regardless of the topic you chose you must use material that comes out of at least three our modules. This material must come from what was assigned. The supplemental readings and videos can be used. References to, say, Plato or Wollstonecraft, etc. that are not part of the assigned readings (that come from unassigned chapters or books) do not count towards this requirement. (If you have such outside knowledge, use it to illuminate the assigned chapters.) This paper, like this class in general, is about exploring the assigned readings.
Again, because the reading is so short, Jefferson cannot count as one of your three authors. Of course, you can use him, but he does not fulfill this requirement. Friedmans interpretation of the Declaration does fulfill the requirement. All the other modules, including Module 1 are fair game and count towards the 3 module requirement.
The sub-questions are just thoughts that may help you dive into these issues. You are not required to address all or even any of them. The idea is just to simply to explore these ideas, explore these texts.

Additional Notes:

Regardless of the topic you choose, keep your focus on the texts. Your grade will be based on the thoroughness and depth of your textual knowledge. All the topics and suggestions are all just vehicles for an exploration of the ideas in these texts. (See the rubric below.)
Regardless of your topic, you must thoroughly support your arguments using the assigned material. This is fundamental. These are academic papers. All your arguments should be supported.
Your support must be cited accurately. Parenthetical reference (in-text citation) and a Works Cited is required. Use whatever style guide youre most comfortable using. Just be consistent. I wont be deducting point for stylistic errors of this sort, but it is good practice for you. What is most important for me is that I can find what youre pointing to. Errors of this nature are more serious.
These are not research papers; Im only asking for you to look at the world through the lenses of these thinkers. The idea is work with the assigned material, to explore and play with these ideas. Again, your grade will be based solely on your knowledge of OUR material, not what you can find outside of it.
Along these lines, the use of outside sources is not allowed. Again, the idea is to play with what was assigned and the entirety of your grade will be based on how you work with this material.
No outside sources means every quote and idea you cite must come from the assigned readings. (Does this mean youre not allowed to look things up on your computer? No you can look things up to help solidify your understanding if you think you need to, BUT if you do this you HAVE to come back to your text and use the words and ideas of the text itself in the paper.) You are not allowed to use the words and ideas of online sources in your paper. If you do use an online our outside source and dont cite it, that is plagiarism and you will get an F. Do the work, be honest, and trust yourself.

Im not looking for perfect papers, I just want you to explore the texts and the ideas that lie within them. This is the whole idea and has been all semester.

The paper is worth 15% of your final grade. It is graded along a standard 100 point scale. Point-for-point, the value these points is not equal to the value of the points in the writing assignments (which taken together total 65% of your final grade).

Formal concerns:

The papers should be typewritten using 12-point Times New Roman font (or something of equivalent size and readability), be double-spaced, and use standard margins (1 top and bottom and 1 on the sides).
Citation style doesnt matter. Chicago, MLA, APA are all fine. Just be consistent.
For the supplemental readings, type in something like citing a class handout in MLA [APA, etc.] into a search engine and follow the directions. For citing a video, type in citing a video in MLA (etc.) See below for the web addresses for most of the videos that were used.
Remember, these are formal academic papers. They are expected to be well presented. A paper that is excessively sloppy or ungrammatical will likely lose some points. This is important because sloppy or ungrammatical writing is unclear writing. Clarity is a great virtue in academic writing. Strive for this. Its a problem if your reader isnt sure of what youre getting at. This is the issue, for me. It is not grammar for grammars sake, but grammar for claritys sake.
It is essential that you proofread your work before you hand it in. Also, I cant stress strongly enough that you rewrite or revise your paper a number of times before handing it in. This is a fundamental practice for producing good writing. Rework and clarify your ideas. Identify weak spots and strengthen your arguments. Fix awkward sentences.

*Above are the professor’s notes*
I will provide all readings and materials that can be used. Please be sure to use sources from 3 DIFFERENT modules. Also please note that the text in module 7 and 9 is the same essay but module 7 only focuses on chapter 4 and module 9 only focuses on chapter 3. I’ll provide a doc that shows which source is in which module.

Last Completed Projects