Using Plato's Ideas in an essay

[Jean in Newcastle]

The assignment was, using the ideas in Plato's Republic, take a real life scenario and give his solution to the situation. Then give your own solution. We discussed the need to document and to give reasons for all theses.

 

Here is ds14's 2nd draft. I don't feel like he totally did as I asked. I'd love to get your feedback.

 

 

Imagine that you are the principal (or superintendent, or other form of ruler) of a high school. You have recently received several letters requesting a play, slated for the drama club, be banned because the play portrayed violence and some strong language. Do you censor this play, or allow it to be taught? Now, imagine that there is evidence that many people in society act this way, and that this play speaks out against these patterns. Now what?

 

Plato would say to censor this play, because an actor playing the villain will be affected by playing the part negatively. For example, in part 3 of book 3 of his Republic, he says, “‘Since then we care for out Guardians [The ruling, commanding, and military class of his system], and want them to be men of worth,’ I said, ‘we will not allow them to take the parts of women, young or old (for they are men)...and of bad men who are cowards, and whose behavior is just the opposite of what we have described. Such characters indulge in comic abuse and use foul language, drunk or sober, and say and do typical things that are an offense against themselves and their neighbors...’â€. He also says that these things should not be seen, lest someone identify with the villain.

 

 

I would not agree. Sometimes, playing the part of the villain can be a deterrent, especially when the villain has something bad happen to him in the end. Also, Plato assumes that people are the direct result of what they are exposed to, and cannot decide to be good or evil. Had Hitler not made the choices he had, he could have been what we consider a nice person. The same goes for Stalin. However, they both decided to follow certain values. Likewise, had Abraham Lincoln and George Washington not decided to place such high value in honesty, they would have been very different people than what we study in history books today. On the other hand, if this play were to be done by the 3rd grade, it probably should be censored. Younger children are less able to differentiate between fact and fiction. They also do not understand the concepts of allegory and satire. While Plato would say that NO people should act out this play, I believe that it should be dependant on their level of maturity, knowledge, and thinking skills. Even historical re-enactments can teach in this way, because in almost every case, the villain either dies or gets in a great deal of trouble. Hitler is a case-in-point, as is Billy the Kid.

[swimmermom3]

Jean, please keep in mind that my children tell me I wield writing critiques like a Viking with a battleaxe. I read most examples that run through this workshop but refrain from commenting. I know in my mind what's wrong and how I would fix it, but it definitely comes out on paper like the aftermath of a Viking with a battleaxe.:tongue_smilie: That said, I appreciated your help with my son's paper and hope I can return the help.

 

 

The assignment was, using the ideas in Plato's Republic, take a real life scenario and give his solution to the situation. Then give your own solution. We discussed the need to document and to give reasons for all theses.

 

Here is ds14's 2nd draft. I don't feel like he totally did as I asked. I'd love to get your feedback.

 

Just a note here: If I don't get what I am expecting from a student, I double check that the assignment is one that they can clearly understand and that they are capable of delivering on. I don't know your son, but the directions do seem clear.

 

 

Imagine that you are the principal (or superintendent, or other form of ruler) of a high school. You have recently received several letters requesting a play, slated for the drama club, be banned because the play portrayed violence and some strong language. Do you censor this play, or allow it to be taught? Now, imagine that there is evidence that many people in society act this way, and that this play speaks out against these patterns. Now what?

 

To me, his hook is clear and compelling. I, now as a reader, have a vested interest in where this paper is going. I would have him drop the part in the parentheses. It is distracting and in my opinion, inappropriate for an academic paper. My youngest tends to be very flip and refused to accept the idea of appropriateness until he heard Professor Armstrong on a TC lecture talk about a student who turned in a literary paper saying that "Lancelot had no business leaving his butt exposed." No matter how good the point, the language does not work for an academic paper.

 

The hook needs to be followed by a clear thesis statement. He's drawn me in and left me hanging. Do you have The Lively Art of Writing? Chaps. 2 & 3 offer some of the better instruction I have seen on fully developing a thesis.

 

Plato would say to censor this play, because an actor playing the villain will be affected by playing the part negatively. For example, in part 3 of book 3 of his Republic, he says, “‘Since then we care for out Guardians [The ruling, commanding, and military class of his system], and want them to be men of worth,’ I said, ‘we will not allow them to take the parts of women, young or old (for they are men)...and of bad men who are cowards, and whose behavior is just the opposite of what we have described. Such characters indulge in comic abuse and use foul language, drunk or sober, and say and do typical things that are an offense against themselves and their neighbors...’”. He also says that these things should not be seen, lest someone identify with the villain.

 

He does a nice job of supporting his belief in what Plato would do in this situation; however, the way the quote is inserted is confusing. Was he required to use MLA format?

 

I would not agree. Sometimes, playing the part of the villain can be a deterrent, especially when the villain has something bad happen to him in the end. (No supporting evidence.) Also, Plato assumes that people are the direct result of what they are exposed to, and cannot decide to be good or evil. Good statement. He has already proved that Plato believed this, so he could use it as his topic sentence. It would provide a smooth transition between both paragraphs. Then he could state his disagreement. Had Hitler not made the choices he had, he could have been what we consider a nice person. The same goes for Stalin. However, they both decided to follow certain values. Likewise, had Abraham Lincoln and George Washington not decided to place such high value in honesty, they would have been very different people than what we study in history books today. On the other hand, if this play were to be done by the 3rd grade, it probably should be censored. Younger children are less able to differentiate between fact and fiction. They also do not understand the concepts of allegory and satire. While Plato would say that NO people should act out this play, I believe that it should be dependant on their level of maturity, knowledge, and thinking skills. Even historical re-enactments can teach in this way, because in almost every case, the villain either dies or gets in a great deal of trouble. Hitler is a case-in-point, as is Billy the Kid.

This last part wanders way too much. I am guessing that like my youngest, perhaps your son lost steam at this point. He knew why he disagreed, but wasn't sure how to back it up in a clear and logical fashion. There also isn't really a conclusion.

 

This is a relatively sophisticated topic for an 8th grader to argue; however, I do think he is more than capable of accomplishing the task. As I am evil, I would love to see this paper developed more fully. Tell your son that the problem of great hooks is that they promise the reader so much, that if the reader does not get what's promised, she gets crabby, especially if she happens to be old battleaxe.:tongue_smilie:

Edited May 19, 2012 by swimmermom3

[Bluegoat]

I am wondering what further explanation you gave him? I studied The Republic as a university student in classical philosophy, and I'm not sure what kind of answer I'd give for a question like that. It could be quite difficult I think for a 14 year old to come up with an appropriate scenario that would bring out the implications of Plato's Ideas.

 

ETA: THough his scenario, on thinking a bit more, could work. But he really hasn't tied it in a clear and direct way to the Ideas. What he has written hints at it, but I think he would have to go a bit deeper into how the human soul fits into Plato's understanding of reality, and also, perhaps, Plato's theories about human learning. But that might require going outside The Republic.

Edited May 19, 2012 by Bluegoat

[Jean in Newcastle]

Jean, please keep in mind that my children tell me I wield writing critiques like a Viking with a battleaxe. I read most examples that run through this workshop but refrain from commenting. I know in my mind what's wrong and how I would fix it, but it definitely comes out on paper like the aftermath of a Viking with a battleaxe.:tongue_smilie: That said, I appreciated your help with my son's paper and hope I can return the help.

 

 

This last part wanders way too much. I am guessing that like my youngest, perhaps your son lost steam at this point. He knew why he disagreed, but wasn't sure how to back it up in a clear and logical fashion. There also isn't really a conclusion.

 

This is a relatively sophisticated topic for an 8th grader to argue; however, I do think he is more than capable of accomplishing the task. As I am evil, I would love to see this paper developed more fully. Tell your son that the problem of great hooks is that they promise the reader so much, that if the reader does not get what's promised, she gets crabby, especially if she happens to be old battleaxe.:tongue_smilie:

 

Very helpful! Yes, I'd love to see it developed more fully too. (He's 9th grade btw.) I gave him a battleaxe critique and he ignored pretty much all of it except for a few spelling corrections.:glare: I'm hoping that seeing someone else's critique will spell it out better for him.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I am wondering what further explanation you gave him? I studied The Republic as a university student in classical philosophy, and I'm not sure what kind of answer I'd give for a question like that. It could be quite difficult I think for a 14 year old to come up with an appropriate scenario that would bring out the implications of Plato's Ideas.

 

ETA: THough his scenario, on thinking a bit more, could work. But he really hasn't tied it in a clear and direct way to the Ideas. What he has written hints at it, but I think he would have to go a bit deeper into how the human soul fits into Plato's understanding of reality, and also, perhaps, Plato's theories about human learning. But that might require going outside The Republic.

 

Thank you for your input. I'll have to think some more on this.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Here is his "final" draft:

 

 

Imagine that you are the principal of a high school. You have recently received several letters requesting a play, slated for the drama club, be banned because the play portrayed violence and some strong language. Do you censor this play, or allow it to be taught? Now, imagine that there is evidence that many people in society act this way, and that this play speaks out against these patterns. Now what?

 

Plato would say to censor this play, because an actor playing the villain will be affected permanently by playing a negative part. For example, in part 3 of book 3 of his Republic, he says, “‘Since then we care for out Guardians [The ruling, commanding, and military class of his system], and want them to be men of worth...we will not allow them to take the parts...of bad men who are cowards, and whose behavior is just the opposite of what we have described. Such characters indulge in comic abuse and use foul language, drunk or sober, and say and do typical things that are an offense against themselves and their neighbors...’â€(90) . He also says that these things should not be seen, lest someone identify with the villain (90).

 

I would not agree. Plato assumes that people are the direct result of what they are exposed to, and cannot decide to be good or evil. If this was true, then Chris Gardener would not have turned out to be a strong entrepreneur and a good father. He would instead become a perpetual victim, blaming everyone else for his problems. Likewise, Charles Colson, known as Nixon’s Hatchetman, later turned his life around, starting the Prison Fellowship, an organization dedicated to turning the lives of convicts around through the Bible. He won the Salvation Army’s Others Award for his work , as well as the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion (Chuck Colson, Founder of Prison Fellowship & Colson Center for Christian Worldview, Dies at Age 80).

 

Of course, just because people can overcome their past, and chose their own path, does not mean they go entirely unaffected by their environments. A play like this would be acceptable for a High School, because the students SHOULD be able to differentiate between fact and fiction, and understand the consequences that the villain will suffer. It would not be acceptable for a kindergarten, or even an elementary school, because the children will, for the most part, be unable to understand these concepts. Instead of using Plato’s one-size-fits-all-mental-capacities system, we should use our well designed (or highly evolved, depending on your views) minds to determine what we should watch and what we shouldn’t, and determine what our children should watch. This doesn’t just apply to plays, but to video games, movies, books, TV shows, and, to a certain extent, music.