# Exegesis 1 Preparation
## September 14th, 2020
- The first in-person class of the year for me...it's odd, empty, and everyone gets their own desk (kinda luxurious, in a funereal sort of way)
- "Whaddya know, I have actual human beings in my class!"
- "...and the first tab on the computer is for mental health services. They're onto us!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- So, the 1st exegesis assignment is due Friday, so today we'll go over the requirements, and go through an example assignment
- I WAS going to try and do the exegesis assignment using Honorlock, but I decided that assumes you have a paper copy of the book and I wasn't comfortable doing that - so we'll be relying on the honor system
- It's NOT a research paper, or one where you're trying to take sides; instead, you only need the book, and you're trying to interpret a given text in the wider context of the whole book and how it applies to our lives
- "I'm using the term rather loosely, but I'm simply asking that you take a passage from the book that I'll assign you, and then to interpret what it means, graded on a rubric that you'll also be provided"
- If you don't do well, I will offer an opportunity to revise this assignment - "I'm interested in learning, not competition"
- So, what am I expecting?
- Philosophers use a lot of technical terms, so I'll expect you to define those technical terms that Locke uses; since this is a historical document, there may be other terms that Locke uses in a more antiquated way (e.g. "property") that you'll need to define based on context clues and our discussions
- If you notice Locke plays fast-and-loose with certain terms, too, point that out!
- Locke also makes some key assumptions to base his argument on, some of which he states and some of which are implicit (e.g. that Locke assumes human beings are essentially individuals, whereas Greek philosophers thought that humans weren't "complete" until they came into a society)
- "In the ancient world, they started with what was obvious but obscure and tried to gain clarity; in modern philosophy, they often deny what's obvious and instead focus first on what's clear"
- So, one of Locke's assumptions is "metaphysical individualism," that human beings are essentially individuals first and foremost - what other assumptions are relevant?
- I'll expect you to describe how this particular passage's arguments connect to the wider argument of the book
- If I give you Locke's whole acorn-collecting passage, for instance, why is Locke talking about that here? In that case, it's because Locke is trying to argue that property rights are fundamental and PRIOR to society, which helps him accomplish his goal of saying something, right?
- You should also describe how this passage connects to the wider world of politics - this is a looser requirement, but what does this passage mean to you, personally? What implications does Locke's argument have for mask mandates, or you having to be a Georgia Tech student, or an American, or whatever?
- Finally, I'm expecting you to give the citation of any quotes or references you have - ESPECIALLY chapter and section numbers (and line numbers if possible, although I'll be flexible on those)
- I won't grill you over not having exact MLA format or anything, but I should be able to see where you're getting your information
- Format-wise, do whatever you want! As long as I can recognize that you're doing the above, you can write it as an essay, a poem, a Platonic dialogue, whatever - as long as I can clearly tell you've done each of the above points
- So, the assignment will unlock Wednesday at noon, and be due Friday at midnight
- Personally, Dr. Kirkman recommends we sit down and do the paper in one sitting (which is how it'd be if we were doing this in class), but you're adults
- "That being said, I do think first drafts have a tendency to be really rough, so writing it on Wednesday, letting it sit for a day, and then coming back to revise it is never a bad thing"
- "In real life, I wouldn't recommend ever turning in a first draft; just remember that revision does NOT mean just proofreading for grammar and stuff, but literally 'seeing again,' double-checking things like if your argument makes sense, if you missed any requirements, etc."
- "I hate to give page numbers, but ~2 pages double-spaced w/ 12 point font is average for a good assignment; it doesn't have to be crazy long, but less than a page is probably too short, and more than 3 pages is probably too unfocused"
- Again, though, I don't care about the length; I just care about if you meet all the bullet-point requirements we talked about
- So, let's interpret one of these in-class!
- The text: Chapter XVIII.202, 1-7:
```
Where-ever Law ends, Tyranny begins, if the Law be transgressed to another's harm...who by force invades the Right of another.
```
- So, what specialized vocabulary is Locke using here?
- Tyranny - which Locke defines as "the exercise of power beyond right, which no body can have a right to" (XVIII.199, 1), contrary to the public good
- What, then, does "public good" mean? Locke actually never defines it - but traditionally, Locke seems to mean the public good is an aggregation of everyone's individual, private goods
- compass -
- Law - may refer either to the "Law of Nature," which Locke defines as the right to life, liberty, and property, or the laws created by a society to govern its citizens
- Authority - elsewhere, Locke says this authority is a matter of trust, where magistrates are entrusted to act in the public good - but when that trust is violated, it starts slipping towards tyranny
- Power - Locke says this power comes through the legislative, which comes from the idea that in the state of nature, INDIVIDUALS have power to punish violaters (up to a certain point - you should find the passage where this is said), which in societies is given
- Right -
- Magistrate - Locke's definition here is kind of weird, a combination of judge and leader
- What key assumptions does Locke make here?
- Locke assumes that we all know what the "public good" is, but doesn't explicitly define it
- Locke assumes in the state of nature that INDIVIDUALS have the power to punish others, which is what executive power to enforce laws is based upon
- Locke assumes humans are by nature individuals first, members of communities second
- What connections does this text make with the overall text?
- Locke says that tyranny is acting against the law, but that seems to be in tension with what he said about prerogative (Chapter XIV.60), where he says it may go "sometimes even against it [i.e. the law]"
- This might be reconciled by saying tyranny is only when the action is "not for the good of those who are under it"
- Even in talking about prerogative, though, Locke warns about the danger of that becoming tyrannical
- So clearly, for Locke, there's a line where prerogative slips into tyranny - what is that line? When the executive isn't acting with the public good in mind - which is a line, but perhaps a fuzzy one
- Locke says that we agree to be in a commonwealth, subject to law, only if everyone else is subject to the law, INCLUDING our leaders and those with executive power
- How does this connect to the present day?
- Today, in the United States, when are you most likely to hear someone be declared "tyrannical?" When the President uses their executive power to do something for "the public good" and certain members of the public disagree - which, perhaps, those accusations happen BECAUSE that line between prerogative and tyranny IS slippery and ill-defined
- Another possible direction: if the public good is just seen as a collection of private goods, there's a tendency for LOckean democracies to slip into interest groups, and even today you hear different interest groups saying "well, this candidate isn't doing enough for US"
- Another connection: the presidency has over time gained more and more executive power, and if that were to overwhelm the checks-and-balances system, perhaps that's a deeper problem with the idea of "fiduciary trust" placed in a single executive - for instance, Andrew Jackson
- So, you can see that when you think in these terms, it's not just technical terms like prerogative or tyranny or what-have-you, but really about to these wider ideas of checks-and-balances, keeping leaders in check, etc.
- There's a TON of other threads even in this passage, but just digging into that tension between tyranny and prerogative would be perfectly adequate for this exegesis assignment
- "I mean, a philosophy PhD. could literally write a BOOK about all the connections here, talking about how this plays with the English Civil War, etc."
- So, the goal here is not to be exhaustive and define every little point and connection, but to be adventurous, to make a good-faith effort to engage with the text and explain it
- So, do the exegesis, know the discussion board this week is optional (but can be used to ask questions about this assignment), the exegesis is due Friday, and we'll start reading Rousseau next week
- "Rousseau is a totally different bird and a wild ride - he had a weird, WEIRD, fascinating life, and was very averse to being under any arbitrary power (he wrote an opera that the French king's mistress ADORED at the beginning of the romantic movement, the king offered Rousseau a VERY generous pension that would've lifted him out of poverty, and he turned it down so the king wouldn't have power over him)"
- He has a literary style and a very different approach to politics than Locke - if you think of the U.S. as predominantly Lockean but with a strong dash of Rousseau thrown in, I think that's a pretty accurate view of our country