Today’s goals Essay 2 Machiavelli Group Passage Work and Presentation Structuring Guidelines How to Introduce the Essay Paraphrase vs. Quoting Evidence More details about Conceptual Steps Machiavelli Group Passage Work and Presentation

Your Concept Choices… Virtue and/or Fortune chapters 6 and 7 Enemy chapters 7 / 23 Cruelty chapters 8 / 17 Virtue and Fortune: chapters 18 / 25 Due Monday: Complete, Academic and Logically Coherent Draft of first 2 conceptual steps and a preliminary thesis that serves as basis for setting up Step 3 (50 pts WP)

From the WH “Analyzing Philosophical Texts” “A philosophical text is an argumentative text, and it sets out to prove a thesis. Its purpose is to prove the validity of a position taken” (74). Our Essay Task (Conceptual Steps One and Two) Articulate the definition of the general “concept” as you find it in Machiavelli’s text Consider the specific examples offered by the author and verify whether those examples are congruent with the offered principle To Set up your evaluative argument based on conclusions you draw: If yes/no, to what end and “so what”

“Conceptual” Steps in the process How is the key concept defined – characterized, described, etc. Of what does it consist? (characteristics, qualities, principles) In the case of “fortune,” what does fortune mean in your assigned chapter, according to how Machiavelli characterizes it? This requires that you distill and paraphrase rather than quote

Quoting vs Paraphrase? Literary Analysis (English, Comparative Literature, etc): Relies on Quotes – Focus on the language in the text (as example of metaphor or appeal to pathos, etc.) Challenge: Warrants require you explain HOW words in quotes perform, symbolize, illustrate your claim. Conceptual Analysis (Philosophy) Relies on Paraphrase – Focus on explaining ideas and progression of thinking taking place in the text Challenge: Distilling/Paraphrase is an interpretive but not an evaluative process

Paraphrase and Distillation Practice “It is not unknown to me that many persons have held, and hold, the opinion that the things of the world are governed by fortune and by God, that men, with their prudence, cannot correct them, and that instead they have no remedy for them whatsoever. For this reason they might judge that there be no point in sweating much in the things of this world, but let themselves be governed by chance. Nonetheless, so that our free will may not be eliminated, I judge that it may be true that fortune is the arbiter of half of our actions, but that she indeed allows us to govern the other half of them, or almost that much” (117).

“Conceptual” Steps in the process How is that definition articulated in the text? This requires an analysis of the structure of that argument: For Example: How is the general principle of “fortune” established Is it explicitly stated?  Is it implicitly given? Is it offered through analogy? Etc.

Definition of ANALOGY “An analogy is a comparison between two objects, or systems of objects, that highlights respects in which they are thought to be similar. Analogical reasoning is any type of thinking that relies upon an analogy. An analogical argument is an explicit representation of a form of analogical reasoning that cites accepted similarities between two systems to support the conclusion that some further similarity exists. ” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Dedicatory Letter  to Whom?  for whom is Machiavelli writing and why? The analogy of political analysis as sketching from the mountains and from the plains places strategy and the issue of perspective front and center. But… How do analogies work? Not simple comparisons but specific logical arguments made out of complex premises: (B is to A what C is to D) The etymology: from the Greek ἀναλογία (ana=similar; logos: speech) and Latin analogia; it indicates a relationship of similarity

The Analogy of the River to characterize “Fortune” “And I liken her [fortune] to one of these ruinous rivers that, when they become angry, flood the plains, ruin the trees and the buildings, and lift earth from one side and place it on the other” (117)

“An analogical argument has the following form: 1. S is similar to T in certain (known) respects. 2. S has some further feature Q. 3.Therefore, T also has the feature Q, or some feature Q* similar to Q. (1) and (2) are premises. (3) is the conclusion of the argument. The argument form is inductive; the conclusion is not guaranteed to follow from the premises.”  

How does the Analogy of the ruinous river work? (Chapter 25 p.117) 1. S is similar to T in certain (known) respects  Fortune is similar to a ruinous river for its destructive power 2. S has some further feature Q  Ruinous rivers can be controlled in quiet times 3.Therefore, T also has the feature Q, or some feature Q* similar to Q  Fortune is similar to a ruinous river in quiet times as well Therefore Fortune’s action can be controlled/foreseen as a river’s action can be controlled/foreseen. What else can the analogy suggest?

“Conceptual” Steps in the process How is this definition applied to and tested against a particular example: What kind of examples are used in the assigned chapter? Is there a difference between theoretical scenarios used to illustrate the principle and historical references, such as the experience of Agathocles? Do historical examples agree with the general principle established in the text? Do historical examples line up with contemporary examples? Etc. Leading to Step 3: Is the definition consistent with Machiavelli’s use of the concept in the text as a whole? Finally, can you think of any objections? Can you derive any conclusion from your evaluation of the argument? For Example: Overarching irony and satire to support M’ criticism of Monarchy

Group 2: Enemy (45 last par.-47 …“no longer a remedy”) How does M define/characterize/apply the below concepts (implicitly and/or explicitly, analogically, through example)? What role do human agency or the nature of power or authority play in M’s characterization/application of the below concepts? Is there a practical lesson about coming to power or staying in power? Group 1: Prudence (47-48) Group 2: Enemy (45 last par.-47 …“no longer a remedy”) Group 3: Virtue (54 bottom – 57 bottom) Group 4: Cruelty (61-top 62) Group 5: Contemptibility (bottom 84-top 86)