Second Draft

[WIlliams College]

Second Draft

By the second draft, you should be getting beyond mere notes and scribbles.

Tips on style

Tips on substance

...In the Republic, Plato attempts to develop a parallel between justice in the city and justice in the individual. He does this because he thinks the nature of justice will be clearer in the case of a city, and that the insight we derive from considering a city will apply to the individual. Plato’s basic idea seems to be that, just as every person’s excellence has a particular role to play in generating harmony in the city (433d-434d), within every individual the competing parts of our psychology will each have an appropriate role (442d and 443d-444e).

...In this paper I will argue that Plato has not shown that city characteristics that must be in harmony for justice are the same as the microscopic, person characteristics of the soul. This will not prove that harmony in the soul has nothing to do with justice, since there may be harmony among the souls parts even if they are nothing like the parts of the city. If I am right, however, then there would be an important gap in Plato's view of justice.

...Socrates clearly attempts to show that the parts of the soul are the same as the parts of the city (435e). What he says is that finding characteristics of a city is evidence for those same characteristics in the individuals that make up that city. His argument seems to be that there is no alternative explanation for the origin of those characteristics in the city. That's why he says, "Where else would [the characteristics] come from?" If I can come up with another explanation, then Plato will have to take back this argument.

...It is not true that every feature of a large system like a city can be found in each of the subparts of that system. It seems like sometimes the sum is not only greater but also different from the parts. Features of a large system can sometimes emerge as a result of the interaction of features of its subparts. The later may not be at all like the former. After all, a person is made up of arms, legs, torso, etc., but we wouldn't say that, for example, courage is in someone's legs just because she is courageous. Courage looks like a different feature than the features of legs and arms and torsos. Likewise, maybe spiritedness in a city doesn't arise in spiritedness in the individuals as Socrates says in 435e. But how can a ‘new’ characteristic appear in a larger system if it is not present in any of the parts of the system? It seems like when several different characteristics interact in particular ways, they generate new characteristics through their interaction. When we say that an ecological system is resilient against environmental change, we don’t necessarily mean that any of the particular entities that make up the ecological system are resilient. The entities might be fragile, but their interaction may allow the whole ecological system to be resilient.


PLATO PAPER SECOND DRAFT ...In the Republic, Plato attempts to develop a parallel between justice in the city and justice in the individual. He does this because he thinks the nature of justice will be clearer in the case of a city, and that the insight we derive from considering a city will apply to the individual. Plato’s basic idea seems to be that, just as every person’s excellence has a particular role to play in generating harmony in the city (433d-434d), within every individual the competing parts of our psychology will each have an appropriate role (442d and 443d-444e). ...In this paper I will argue that Plato has not shown that city characteristics that must be in harmony for justice are the same as the microscopic, person characteristics of the soul. This will not prove that harmony in the soul has nothing to do with justice, since there may be harmony among the souls parts even if they are nothing like the parts of the city. If I am right, however, then there would be an important gap in Plato's view of justice. ...Socrates clearly attempts to show that the parts of the soul are the same as the parts of the city (435e). What he says is that finding characteristics of a city is evidence for those same characteristics in the individuals that make up that city. His argument seems to be that there is no alternative explanation for the origin of those characteristics in the city. That's why he says, "Where else would [the characteristics] come from?" If I can come up with another explanation, then Plato will have to take back this argument. ...It is not true that every feature of a large system like a city can be found in each of the subparts of that system. It seems like sometimes the sum is not only greater but also different from the parts. Features of a large system can sometimes emerge as a result of the interaction of features of its subparts. The later may not be at all like the former. After all, a person is made up of arms, legs, torso, etc., but we wouldn't say that, for example, courage is in someone's legs just because she is courageous. Courage looks like a different feature than the features of legs and arms and torsos. Likewise, maybe spiritedness in a city doesn't arise in spiritedness in the individuals as Socrates says in 435e. But how can a ‘new’ characteristic appear in a larger system if it is not present in any of the parts of the system? It seems like when several different characteristics interact in particular ways, they generate new characteristics through their interaction. When we say that an ecological system is resilient against environmental change, we don’t necessarily mean that any of the particular entities that make up the ecological system are resilient. The entities might be fragile, but their interaction may allow the whole ecological system to be resilient.
	.	This is a more refined draft of a first paragraph. It is merely to remind the writer where she is going. It will certainly be revised when the paper is finished.	.

	.	There should be a few sentences or a paragraph early in the paper that states the author's objectives. Notice the first-person voice of the first sentence. Not only is this acceptable in philosophical writing, it is very common.	.

	.	All the work of putting together quotations has been distilled into a short statement of Plato's argument. This will need to be expanded in the next draft, but here the writer is trying to express the essential point of the passages that she is considering.	.

	.	The writer's own view is expressed here with slightly more detail and clarity than in the last drafts. We still get the sense that the thesis is clearer in her mind than it is on paper. That is fine at this stage. This section of the paper will receive a great deal of attention in the next drafts.	.



.	This draft is better written than any previous draft, and contains the crucial elements of a paper. At the very least, by this time the student has started to think about how to relate her ideas to the text and has started to convey her own views. There is still a great deal to fill in, since she has not really said what is at stake. Furthermore, the writer has not spelled out in enough detail her own idea. It would be nice to have a more concrete analysis of the whole mismatch between city characteristics and person characteristics. Still, it is a productive start. Notice how short the draft is. Since the writer is working with a limit on space, she is trying to navigate between brevity on the one hand and attention to detail on the other.	.