Course level:<\/strong> Lower- to mid-level undergraduate (200-level) Political Theory \/ Classical Political Philosophy<\/p>\n Typical providers:<\/strong> Political Science, Philosophy, PPE programmes at LSE, UofT, UBC, Edinburgh and similar institutions.<\/p>\n Assessment type:<\/strong> Assessment 1 \u2013 Textual Exegesis and Comparative Analysis Essay<\/p>\n Weighting:<\/strong> 25% of final grade<\/p>\n Length:<\/strong> 1,500-word essay (approximately 4\u20135 pages, double-spaced, 12 pt Times New Roman)<\/p>\n Due:<\/strong> End of Week 6 (after completion of units on Plato\u2019s Republic<\/em> and Aristotle\u2019s Politics<\/em>)<\/p>\n Classical Political Philosophy modules consistently ask students to engage closely with short passages from Plato\u2019s Republic<\/em> and Aristotle\u2019s Politics<\/em>, and to relate them to questions about justice, the state, and the \u201cideal city\u201d. This assessment mirrors those recurring patterns: a source-based exegetical essay that requires careful reading, conceptual clarification, and limited but focused comparison. It is designed to fit directly into political theory, philosophy, or intellectual history syllabi that devote the opening third of the semester to Plato and Aristotle.<\/p>\n Task:<\/strong> Write a 1,500-word exegetical and analytical essay on one of the following prompts. You must engage in detailed textual analysis of the primary sources and offer a focused comparison between Plato and Aristotle.<\/p>\n In Republic<\/em> Books II\u2013IV, Plato develops a vision of a just city in which each class performs its own function and the philosopher-king rules. In Politics<\/em> Books III\u2013IV, Aristotle offers a typology of constitutions and defends a \u201cpolity\u201d as a practical best regime. Exegete one key passage from each author that illuminates what \u201cjustice\u201d means in their account of the city, and then assess one major point of disagreement between them about the relationship between justice and political structure.<\/li>\n Plato\u2019s ideal city assigns political rule to a small group of philosopher-kings, whereas Aristotle argues that a large middle class can contribute to stable and just government. Using one passage from Republic<\/em> and one from Politics<\/em>, explain how each thinker understands the role of ordinary citizens in the best possible city, and evaluate which account offers a more convincing model for thinking about citizenship today.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n Plato\u2019s account of justice in the city begins from a division of functions that mirrors what he takes to be the tripartite structure of the soul. In Republic<\/em> IV he describes a city as just when each of the three classes minds its own business and does its own work (433a\u2013434d), and he identifies political justice with a form of harmony in which ruling, auxiliary, and producing classes each perform their appropriate role. Aristotle rejects this model of justice as excessively unified and overly dependent on a single rational authority. In Politics<\/em> III\u2013IV he shifts attention toward the interplay of rich and poor citizens and praises a polity in which a broad middle class shares power because their mixed position fosters stability and moderation (1279a\u20131280a). Contemporary scholarship emphasizes that Aristotle\u2019s analysis of constitutional diversity reflects a methodological commitment to empirical comparison and practical judgment rather than to the construction of a single ideal blueprint for political order (Mulgan 2018).<\/p>\n Recent scholarship further suggests that the divergence between Plato and Aristotle on justice reflects distinct methodological commitments concerning the relationship between normative ideals and empirical political forms. Whereas Plato grounds the just city in a philosophical anthropology that prioritizes rational harmony within both soul and polis, Aristotle situates justice within the dynamics of existing constitutions and the distributive claims advanced by different social groups. This contrast indicates that Aristotle\u2019s account of the best regime is inseparable from his analysis of citizenship, stability, and the rule of law, thereby framing justice as a practice embedded in institutional arrangements rather than as a purely structural ideal (Grigoriadis 2023).<\/p>\n POLI\/PHIL 220: Classical Political Philosophy \u2013 Assessment 1: Exegetical Essay on Justice and the \u201cIdeal City\u201d in Plato and Aristotle Assessment Overview Course level: Lower-…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4777,4848],"tags":[4844,4847,4845,4838,4842,4846,4840,4841,4839,4843],"class_list":["post-1996","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-aristotle-essays","category-exegetical-essay","tag-aristotle-politics","tag-assessment-rubric","tag-citizenship-and-polity","tag-classical-political-philosophy","tag-exegesis-essay","tag-justice-and-ideal-city","tag-plato-republic","tag-plato-vs-aristotle","tag-political-philosophy-assessment","tag-undergraduate-political-theory"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.essaybishops.com\/dissertations\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1996","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.essaybishops.com\/dissertations\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.essaybishops.com\/dissertations\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.essaybishops.com\/dissertations\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.essaybishops.com\/dissertations\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1996"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.essaybishops.com\/dissertations\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1996\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1998,"href":"https:\/\/www.essaybishops.com\/dissertations\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1996\/revisions\/1998"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.essaybishops.com\/dissertations\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1996"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.essaybishops.com\/dissertations\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1996"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.essaybishops.com\/dissertations\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1996"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\nAssessment Context<\/h2>\n
Assessment Task<\/h2>\n
Assessment 1 \u2013 Exegetical Essay: Justice and the Ideal City<\/h3>\n
Choose ONE of the following questions:<\/h3>\n
\n
Exegetical Focus<\/h3>\n
\n
\nStructural and Technical Requirements<\/h2>\n
\n
\n
\n
Marking Rubric \u2013 Assessment 1 (25%)<\/h2>\n
\n\n
\n \nCriterion<\/th>\n High Distinction \/ A (80\u2013100%)<\/th>\n Distinction \/ B+ (70\u201379%)<\/th>\n Credit \/ C (60\u201369%)<\/th>\n Pass \/ D (50\u201359%)<\/th>\n Fail \/ F (<50%)<\/th>\n Weight<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n \n 1. Exegesis of primary texts<\/td>\n Provides precise, contextually rich explanation of chosen passages from Republic<\/em> and Politics<\/em>; accurately reconstructs the argument and clarifies key concepts; shows awareness of how the passage fits the work as a whole.<\/td>\n Accurate explanation of passages with minor gaps in context or detail; concepts mostly clear; shows some sense of broader argument.<\/td>\n Basic summary of passages; occasional inaccuracies or confusion; limited connection to broader argument.<\/td>\n Superficial or largely paraphrased account; significant omissions in context or meaning; weak grasp of key concepts.<\/td>\n Misreads or misattributes central arguments; little evidence of having engaged with the primary texts.<\/td>\n 30%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 2. Comparative analysis (Plato vs. Aristotle)<\/td>\n Offers a focused and insightful comparison on the chosen theme; clearly identifies points of agreement and disagreement; comparison deepens understanding of each thinker.<\/td>\n Identifies relevant similarities and differences; comparison is accurate but may not fully exploit its analytical potential.<\/td>\n Lists differences and similarities in a mostly descriptive way; limited integration with exegetical insights.<\/td>\n Comparison is partial, vague, or off-topic; tends to treat authors in isolation.<\/td>\n No meaningful comparison; essay treats each thinker separately or conflates their views.<\/td>\n 25%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 3. Argument and evaluation<\/td>\n Develops a clear, defensible thesis in response to the chosen question; supports claims with textual evidence; offers reasoned evaluation of which account is more persuasive, or how they illuminate modern debates.<\/td>\n Includes a thesis and some evaluative claims; argument mostly coherent, though some steps are underdeveloped or asserted rather than fully defended.<\/td>\n Implicit or weak thesis; argument largely descriptive; evaluation is brief or not well supported.<\/td>\n No sustained argument; essay reads as a summary of the readings with minimal critical stance.<\/td>\n Lacks discernible thesis or argument; evaluative statements are unsupported or absent.<\/td>\n 20%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 4. Engagement with secondary literature<\/td>\n Integrates 3\u20135 recent scholarly sources appropriately; uses them to clarify, support, or challenge interpretations without outsourcing the core argument; citation practices are consistent and accurate.<\/td>\n Uses at least 2\u20133 relevant scholarly sources; generally sound integration with occasional overreliance or limited critical engagement.<\/td>\n Uses some secondary material but in a largely additive or decorative way; may rely on textbook-level sources; citation errors present.<\/td>\n Minimal or inappropriate secondary sources; heavy reliance on non-scholarly material; inconsistent or incomplete referencing.<\/td>\n No recognizable scholarly sources; little or no referencing.<\/td>\n 15%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 5. Structure, clarity, and style<\/td>\n Essay is clearly structured with introduction, logically ordered body, and conclusion; prose is precise and readable; transitions guide the reader; terminology is used accurately.<\/td>\n Overall structure is clear; writing is mostly fluent; occasional awkward sentences or minor organizational issues.<\/td>\n Basic structure present; some paragraphs lack clear focus; writing occasionally unclear or repetitive.<\/td>\n Weak or confusing structure; frequent stylistic and grammatical errors impede clarity.<\/td>\n Very poor organization; serious and persistent language problems; difficult to follow.<\/td>\n 5%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 6. Presentation and adherence to guidelines<\/td>\n Meets word count appropriately; follows all formatting and submission instructions; MLA style consistently correct in-text and in Works Cited.<\/td>\n Minor deviations from word count or formatting; citation style mostly correct with small errors.<\/td>\n Noticeable deviation from word count; several formatting or citation errors, but core requirements met.<\/td>\n Substantial deviation from length; frequent citation or formatting issues; some instructions ignored.<\/td>\n Does not meet basic technical requirements; missing Works Cited; serious failure to follow instructions.<\/td>\n 5%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n \n
References<\/h2>\n
\n