S14P305FinReview

 

Description: basu:public_html:poli305:images:kant_2-2x.jpg

Description: basu:public_html:poli305:images:Wollnewx.jpg

Description: basu:public_html:poli305:images:Hegelx.jpg

Description: basu:public_html:poli305:images:Marxx.jpg

Description: basu:public_html:poli305:images:nietzsche2x.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 Cosmo

 Fem

Commun 

 Marx

 PoMo

 

 

 

 

 

Kant, Immanuel.

Wollstonecraft, Mary.

Hegel, G.W.H.

Marx, Karl.

 

Nietzsche, Friedrich.

 

Question formats

 

Pictures – identify (some are our five philosophers but some are not)

 

List of words or short phrases – identify the philosopher that uses each.

 

Quotes - identify the philosopher for each and be prepared to explain in relation to larger arguments (donÕt just paraphrase quote)

 

Questions on Student Presentations – answer two questions that draw from the actual presentation and/or the digital format (with a focus on central claims, key concepts, competing approaches, especially salient data) – multiple choice, T/F or very short answer.

 

Essay Questions – one required and one choice from two –

 

If one was to consider the New York Times front page top news stories on any given day, which of our five isms would wield the greatest explanatory power and the most critical insights?  Would each of the political philosophies (or isms) have particular strengths? i.e., be more useful with some sorts of stories than others?  In answering refer specifically to interpretive issues involving K, W, H, M, and N.

 

To what extent do you regard it as defensible and useful to try to understand and criticize the text of a given philosopher on the basis of his/her biography on the one hand, and/or the textÕs reception history (i.e., appropriation and use by later generations) on the other?  In answering refer specifically to interpretive issues involving K, W, H, M, and N.

 

In the case of each of the political philosophies (or isms), it is possible to distinguish descriptive from prescriptive versions of the theorizing.  But can one criticize the past and present without also becoming committed to a particular vision of the future?  Can one be a critical philosophical or empirical proponent of a given ism without subscribing to the ethical demands it places on human action? In answering refer specifically to interpretive issues involving K, W, H, M, and N.

 

Where do you think Modernity (sing/pl?) is headed?  Are we actually making progress?  Focus on the respective accounts of Modernity offered by K, W, H, M, and N.  What concerned them and where did they place their hopes?  What concerns you and where do you place your hopes?

 

Fill in this Table: Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.

 

 

 

Relevant concepts

hml

 

 

L

 

 

 

 

Kant

 

E

 

 

 

 

 

F

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

L

 

 

 

 

Woll

Stone

craft

 

E

 

 

 

 

 

F

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

L

 

 

 

 

Hegel

 

E

 

 

 

 

 

F

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

L

 

 

 

 

Marx

 

E

 

 

 

 

 

F

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

L

 

 

 

 

Neitzsche

 

E

 

 

 

 

 

F