This assessment is a core component of PHIL2001: Ancient Greek Philosophy<\/b> (or equivalent POLI210: Classical Political Thought<\/b>). It is designed to evaluate your ability to engage in textual exegesis<\/b> and comparative philosophical analysis. Having explored the Socratic dialogues and Plato\u2019s metaphysical framework, we now shift to the Aristotelian critique. This assignment requires you to move beyond summary and engage in the “Great Conversation” between the Academy and the Lyceum regarding the nature of reality and the attainment of virtue.<\/p>\nAssignment Brief: Plato\u2019s Idealism vs. Aristotle\u2019s Realism<\/h2>\n
Task Description<\/h3>\n
Write a 1,500-word comparative essay<\/b> analyzing the divergent approaches to Epistemology<\/b> and Ethics<\/b> in the works of Plato and Aristotle. You must specifically address how Plato’s Theory of Forms<\/i> informs his concept of the “Philosopher-King” in The Republic<\/i>, and contrast this with Aristotle\u2019s Empiricism<\/i> and the “Golden Mean” as presented in the Nicomachean Ethics<\/i>.<\/p>\n Thesis Statement:<\/b> Provide a clear, argumentative thesis in the introductory paragraph that identifies the fundamental point of departure between the two thinkers.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Primary Text Integration:<\/b> You must utilize direct evidence from Plato\u2019s Republic<\/i> (Books VI or VII) and Aristotle\u2019s Nicomachean Ethics<\/i> (Book II).<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Methodological Focus:<\/b> Contrast Plato\u2019s transcendentalism<\/b> (the belief that truth exists in a separate realm) with Aristotle\u2019s immanent realism<\/b> (the belief that essence exists within the material object).<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Formatting:<\/b> Follow the MLA 9th Edition<\/b> style guide for all in-text citations and the Works Cited page.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Submission:<\/b> Upload as a .doc or .pdf via the Canvas\/Moodle\/Blackboard “Assessment 2” link.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n Aristotle fundamentally challenges the Platonic notion that virtue requires an apprehension of a transcendent “Form of the Good,” arguing instead that moral excellence is a disposition developed through habituation. While Plato suggests that the soul must turn away from the sensory world to find truth, Aristotle insists that the “Good” must be attainable through human action within the physical realm. This shift from a mathematical-metaphysical model of ethics to a practical, biological one marks the birth of empirical observation in Western social science. As noted in the Nicomachean Ethics<\/i>, moral virtue is essentially a “mean” between two extremes of deficiency and excess, a state that is determined by a rational principle Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics<\/i>, 1107a<\/a>.<\/p>\n Annas, Julia. Virtue Ethics<\/i>. Oxford University Press, 2024. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1093\/actrade\/9780192843517.001.0001<\/a><\/p>\n<\/li>\n Fine, Gail. The Oxford Handbook of Plato<\/i>. 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, 2019. https:\/\/www.google.com\/books\/edition\/_\/9m-WDwAAQBAJ<\/a><\/p>\n<\/li>\n Irwin, Terence. Aristotle\u2019s First Principles<\/i>. Oxford University Press, 2023 (Reprint). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1093\/0198242905.001.0001<\/a><\/p>\n<\/li>\nCore Requirements<\/h3>\n
\n
Marking Rubric (Undergraduate Level 200\/2000)<\/h2>\n
\n\n
\n Criteria<\/strong><\/td>\n High Distinction (80-100%)<\/strong><\/td>\n Distinction (70-79%)<\/strong><\/td>\n Credit (60-69%)<\/strong><\/td>\n Pass (50-59%)<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n\n \n Analysis & Argument<\/b><\/span><\/td>\n Sophisticated synthesis of primary texts; original and compelling thesis.<\/span><\/td>\n Clear argument with strong logical progression and nuanced understanding.<\/span><\/td>\n Consistent argument but may rely on standard interpretations.<\/span><\/td>\n Basic argument present; relies heavily on description rather than analysis.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Textual Evidence<\/b><\/span><\/td>\n Precise use of specific passages; excellent exegesis and integration.<\/span><\/td>\n Good use of quotes to support claims; accurate referencing.<\/span><\/td>\n Sufficient evidence provided but integration may be clunky.<\/span><\/td>\n Minimal or irrelevant use of primary source material.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Disciplinary Knowledge<\/b><\/span><\/td>\n Masterful grasp of “Forms,” “Eudaimonia,” and “Empiricism.”<\/span><\/td>\n Accurate application of philosophical terminology.<\/span><\/td>\n Generally accurate but some minor conceptual errors.<\/span><\/td>\n Significant misunderstanding of core philosophical concepts.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Structure & Style<\/b><\/span><\/td>\n Flawless academic tone; elegant transitions; perfect MLA formatting.<\/span><\/td>\n Professional tone; clear structure; minor formatting issues.<\/span><\/td>\n Readable with some awkward phrasing; inconsistent formatting.<\/span><\/td>\n Poor organization; frequent grammatical errors; incorrect citation style.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n \n
Sample Instructional Guidance<\/h2>\n
\u00a0Resources and Works Cited<\/h2>\n
\n