Third Draft

[Williams College]

Third Draft

At this point you should take great care to carry the reader along and fill in all the details necessary to understand the paper. More importantly, you have been thinking about the argument for a long time now. You should settle on the best way of putting it. For example, in this draft, the writer has decided to drop the formulation of her idea that invokes parts of a body. She prefers here to put it more abstractly in terms of 'city-level' characteristics and 'person-level' characteristcs.

[Williams College]

Third Draft

At this point you should take great care to carry the reader along and fill in all the details necessary to understand the paper. More importantly, you have been thinking about the argument for a long time now. You should settle on the best way of putting it. For example, in this draft, the writer has decided to drop the formulation of her idea that invokes parts of a body. She prefers here to put it more abstractly in terms of 'city-level' characteristics and 'person-level' characteristcs.

PARTS OF THE CITY AND PARTS OF THE SOUL IN PLATO'S REPUBLIC

Deirdre Johnson

...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-level parts that must be in harmony for justice are the same as the microscopic, person-level parts 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 in that the details of justice in the individual remain obscure.

...Plato attempts to make the same case for justice in the city and in the individual by appealing to the same relationships between the same parts of a city and an individual soul. 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. Socrates says,

Well, then, we are surely compelled to agree that each of us has within himself the same parts and characteristics as the city? Where else would they come from? It would be ridiculous for anyone to think that spiritedness didn't come to be in cities from such individuals as the Thracians, Scythians, and others who live to the north of us who are held to possess spirit, or that the same isn't true of the love of learning, which is mostly associated with our part of the world, or the love of money, which one might say is conspicuously displayed by the Phoenicians and Egyptians (435e).

...His argument in this passage seems to be that there is no alternative explanation for the origin of those characteristics in the city. That is why he says, "Where else would [the characteristics] come from?" After giving arguments for the parts of the soul — the appetitive part, the rational part, and the spirited part — Plato has Socrates conclude, “We are pretty much agreed that the same number and the same kinds of classes as are in the city are also in the soul of each individual” (441c). Again, this shows that the issue is important to Plato. Given the nature of the argument, if it is possible to give an alternative explanation for the origin of the characteristics of the city, then Plato will be unable to draw the precise parallel that he is after. It is true that Plato tries to motivate each of the parts of the soul on independent grounds. For example, he argues that there must be something that sometimes prevents thirsty people from drinking and he labels this the rational part of the soul (439d). The reason he identifies the part this way, however, is that he is attempting to link up his account of justice in the individual to the account he has given of justice in the city. It appears that the only reason he has to identify the rational part as a single ruling part of the soul is because ruling is a part of a just city.

...It is not the case, however, that every feature of a large system like a city can be found in each of the subparts of that system. 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. For example, 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. This may well be the case with respect to the relationship between a city and the individuals that make up a city. The well functioning city may naturally need a specific ruler or group of rulers. But the a ruling part does not need to be present in any individual because rulership may be a characteristic that results from the interaction of individuals none of whom have a ruling part. To take a specific case from the Republic, spiritedness in a city doesn't necessarily need to arise in spiritedness in the Thracians and Sythians as Socrates claims (435e). Sometimes groups of people are spirited in Plato’s sense because they are in a group. None of the individuals need to be spirited, but the combination of individual non-spirited personalities can yield spiritedness at the level of the group. Thus, there are city-level parts and person-level parts without necessity of overlap between these parts.

...It may seem puzzling that a ‘new’ characteristic can appear in a larger system when it is not present in any of the parts. It seems like when several different characteristics interact in particular ways, they generate new characteristics through their interaction. The entities of an ecosystem might be fragile, but their interaction may allow the whole system to be resilient. Resilience is a characteristic of a system that can result from many fragile subparts coordinating.

...Is Plato’s ability to draw a precise parallel between parts of a city and parts of a soul crucial to his theory of justice? It might be thought that harmony is the central component of Plato’s account, and he might argue that the failure of a precise parallel between the city and the individual in terms of parts is irrelevant. I maintain that the precise parallel is important because the details of justice in the individual rely on the specific relationship between the parts of the soul. The mere fact of harmony would leave mysterious what justice is in the indivual.
.
The paper has been given a title. Notice that there is no pun, no joke and no silliness. While it is true that some philosophers write in a comedic style, the usual order of things is to get famous first and cute later. .

.

These are carried over from the previous draft.

.

.
The writer is attempting to give a sense of what is at stake in the paper. There needs to be a reason why this particular topic is a proper target for deeper reflection. So, the writer offers a rationale for pursuing the issue in her paper. .

.
Quotations that ground the discussion in the text were missing from the last draft. Here, the writer isolates a key discussion of the city and the soul and brings Plato's way of putting things to reader's attention. .

.
Notice that the writer does not leave the quotations to speak for themselves. She interprets them for the reader. This in turn gives the reader a sense for how the writer is understanding Plato. .

.

The writer is now making a serious and careful attempt to articulate her alternative account of the relationship between parts of the city and parts of the soul. She has already established a rationale for pursuing this topic. Now, it is her turn to advance a claim.

Immediately after giving her account, the writer sets out to defend it. She attempts to give evidence that her view is right. She does not reference the dictionary or appeal to some authority. She gives reasons to accept her view.

Specifically, she offers a parallel of her own between characteristics of an ecological system and the organisms that make up that system. The hope is that, if the reader reflects on that relationship, he will come to appreciate the merit of the author's claims.

Moreover, the author is anticipating where in her argument the reader might be confused or inclined to resist. The discussion of how it is possible that a new characteristic can appear in a system may well have originated in a discussion the author had with friends about these issues.

.

.
Finally, the author anticipates a possible reply by Plato and tries to respond to it. This part of the paper is somewhat tentative at this point. That is because the most important goal at this stage is defending the main thesis. .

.

This is looking more like a paper that can be turned in, but it is certainly not done yet. It should still be revised for clarity and precision. The next step is to put in enough ‘road signs’ so that the reader knows where the paper is going and what has been achieved. Particular sentences will need revision. The introductory paragraph should be rewritten for the last drafts. The final part of the paper still needs work.

At this point it is crucial that the student read the paper aloud to herself. Better still, reading the paper to an audience will be extremely helpful. Stylistically, if a sentence does not sound right when read aloud, it should not be included in the paper. Substantively, if the listener cannot follow the line of thinking, revisions might be in order.
.

Previous Draft Next Draft


PARTS OF THE CITY AND PARTS OF THE SOUL IN PLATO'S REPUBLIC Deirdre Johnson ...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-level parts that must be in harmony for justice are the same as the microscopic, person-level parts 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 in that the details of justice in the individual remain obscure. ...Plato attempts to make the same case for justice in the city and in the individual by appealing to the same relationships between the same parts of a city and an individual soul. 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. Socrates says, Well, then, we are surely compelled to agree that each of us has within himself the same parts and characteristics as the city? Where else would they come from? It would be ridiculous for anyone to think that spiritedness didn't come to be in cities from such individuals as the Thracians, Scythians, and others who live to the north of us who are held to possess spirit, or that the same isn't true of the love of learning, which is mostly associated with our part of the world, or the love of money, which one might say is conspicuously displayed by the Phoenicians and Egyptians (435e). ...His argument in this passage seems to be that there is no alternative explanation for the origin of those characteristics in the city. That is why he says, "Where else would [the characteristics] come from?" After giving arguments for the parts of the soul — the appetitive part, the rational part, and the spirited part — Plato has Socrates conclude, “We are pretty much agreed that the same number and the same kinds of classes as are in the city are also in the soul of each individual” (441c). Again, this shows that the issue is important to Plato. Given the nature of the argument, if it is possible to give an alternative explanation for the origin of the characteristics of the city, then Plato will be unable to draw the precise parallel that he is after. It is true that Plato tries to motivate each of the parts of the soul on independent grounds. For example, he argues that there must be something that sometimes prevents thirsty people from drinking and he labels this the rational part of the soul (439d). The reason he identifies the part this way, however, is that he is attempting to link up his account of justice in the individual to the account he has given of justice in the city. It appears that the only reason he has to identify the rational part as a single ruling part of the soul is because ruling is a part of a just city. ...It is not the case, however, that every feature of a large system like a city can be found in each of the subparts of that system. 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. For example, 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. This may well be the case with respect to the relationship between a city and the individuals that make up a city. The well functioning city may naturally need a specific ruler or group of rulers. But the a ruling part does not need to be present in any individual because rulership may be a characteristic that results from the interaction of individuals none of whom have a ruling part. To take a specific case from the Republic, spiritedness in a city doesn't necessarily need to arise in spiritedness in the Thracians and Sythians as Socrates claims (435e). Sometimes groups of people are spirited in Plato’s sense because they are in a group. None of the individuals need to be spirited, but the combination of individual non-spirited personalities can yield spiritedness at the level of the group. Thus, there are city-level parts and person-level parts without necessity of overlap between these parts. ...It may seem puzzling that a ‘new’ characteristic can appear in a larger system when it is not present in any of the parts. It seems like when several different characteristics interact in particular ways, they generate new characteristics through their interaction. The entities of an ecosystem might be fragile, but their interaction may allow the whole system to be resilient. Resilience is a characteristic of a system that can result from many fragile subparts coordinating. ...Is Plato’s ability to draw a precise parallel between parts of a city and parts of a soul crucial to his theory of justice? It might be thought that harmony is the central component of Plato’s account, and he might argue that the failure of a precise parallel between the city and the individual in terms of parts is irrelevant. I maintain that the precise parallel is important because the details of justice in the individual rely on the specific relationship between the parts of the soul. The mere fact of harmony would leave mysterious what justice is in the indivual.	.	The paper has been given a title. Notice that there is no pun, no joke and no silliness. While it is true that some philosophers write in a comedic style, the usual order of things is to get famous first and cute later.	.

	.	These are carried over from the previous draft.	.

	.	The writer is attempting to give a sense of what is at stake in the paper. There needs to be a reason why this particular topic is a proper target for deeper reflection. So, the writer offers a rationale for pursuing the issue in her paper.	.

	.	Quotations that ground the discussion in the text were missing from the last draft. Here, the writer isolates a key discussion of the city and the soul and brings Plato's way of putting things to reader's attention.	.

	.	Notice that the writer does not leave the quotations to speak for themselves. She interprets them for the reader. This in turn gives the reader a sense for how the writer is understanding Plato.	.

	.	The writer is now making a serious and careful attempt to articulate her alternative account of the relationship between parts of the city and parts of the soul. She has already established a rationale for pursuing this topic. Now, it is her turn to advance a claim. Immediately after giving her account, the writer sets out to defend it. She attempts to give evidence that her view is right. She does not reference the dictionary or appeal to some authority. She gives reasons to accept her view. Specifically, she offers a parallel of her own between characteristics of an ecological system and the organisms that make up that system. The hope is that, if the reader reflects on that relationship, he will come to appreciate the merit of the author's claims. Moreover, the author is anticipating where in her argument the reader might be confused or inclined to resist. The discussion of how it is possible that a new characteristic can appear in a system may well have originated in a discussion the author had with friends about these issues.	.

	.	Finally, the author anticipates a possible reply by Plato and tries to respond to it. This part of the paper is somewhat tentative at this point. That is because the most important goal at this stage is defending the main thesis.	.


.	This is looking more like a paper that can be turned in, but it is certainly not done yet. It should still be revised for clarity and precision. The next step is to put in enough ‘road signs’ so that the reader knows where the paper is going and what has been achieved. Particular sentences will need revision. The introductory paragraph should be rewritten for the last drafts. The final part of the paper still needs work. At this point it is crucial that the student read the paper aloud to herself. Better still, reading the paper to an audience will be extremely helpful. Stylistically, if a sentence does not sound right when read aloud, it should not be included in the paper. Substantively, if the listener cannot follow the line of thinking, revisions might be in order.	.