Plato’s Allegory of the Cave asks students to think about the nature of truth. How do we know that what we see and believe is the truth? Have we ever tested the boundaries that limit our known reality? If we care about truth and knowledge, then what is required of us in order to seek it? Through group work, Socratic seminar discussion, debate, and a final project, students will examine these questions and engage with ancient and modern texts that disagree about whether our sense of reality has anything to do with truth.

Part One

Assign students to work in groups to discuss the following questions. This will help students prepare for a deeper discussion during the Socratic seminar in the second part of the curriculum.

1. What do the prisoners see and hear in the cave, and what do they believe about the nature of their reality?
2. How does Plato describe the experience of a person leaving the cave for the first time?
3. What allegorical meaning does Socrates ascribe to the cave, the shadows and the world outside?
4. Interpret Plato’s meaning in the following passage:

   “In the world of knowledge, the idea of good is seen last of all; and is seen only with an effort; and, when seen, is also inferred to be the universal author of all things beautiful and right, parent of light and of the lord of light in this visible world, and the immediate source of reason and truth in the intellectual; and that this is the power upon which he who would act rationally, either in public or private life must have his eye fixed.”

5. Explain what Socrates means in the following quote:

   “The power and capacity of learning exists in the soul already; and that just as the eye was unable to turn from darkness to light without the whole body, so too the instrument of knowledge can only by the movement of the whole soul be turned from the world of becoming into that of being, and learn by degrees to endure the sight of being, and of the brightest and best of being, or in other words, of the good”

6. Why does Plato believe those who have this kind of knowledge should be rulers?

(Optional) Group Project:

Read “Chapter One: Plato’s Doctrines” from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Explain the distinction Plato sees between “real” forms and “ideal” forms, or between the “visible” and the “intelligible.” Based on what you have read and what you can infer, what kind of education does Plato believe one needs in order to grasp the ideal forms of things?

Part Two

Arrange the desks in a circle and lead a Socratic discussion with the following prompts and questions.

1. The shadows in the cave are deceptive imitations of reality that are accepted as truth out of habit and ease. The deception is reinforced through a social contract that gains credence by virtue of its being believed by the majority, not through inquiry, examination or a process of reasoning. With this allegory in mind, can you say with confidence that your own sense of reality is based on truth, rather than shadows? How do you know?
2. Plato’s story examines the gulf between appearance and reality, or between truth and perception. Do you believe there is a difference between truth and perception? Or does our subjective perception create truth and reality for us?
3. Plato suggests that a prisoner who sees the world outside the cave and returns to tell the other prisoners about it will not be believed. He writes:

   “Men would say of him that up he went and down he came without his eyes; and that it was better not even to think of ascending; and if any one tried to loose another and lead him up to the light, let them only catch the offender, and they would put him to death.”

Do you agree with the assertion that people in the cave would react this way? Why or why not? Have you ever experienced discomfort when faced with knowledge that contradicts your preconceived ideas of what is true?

4. Is it possible to force people to see or know the truth? Why or why not?
5. What is the aim of education, according to Plato? How does this compare to how we think about education in today’s society?
6. Plato thinks that philosophers should be rulers. What is his rationale for this? What are Plato’s worries if someone other than a philosopher rules? What do you think? Would philosophers be the best kind of civic leaders and rulers?
7. Many philosophers, including Plato, assert that the highest human pursuits are driven by a desire to know the truth about the world, about ourselves, about metaphysics, etc. Do you agree with this? If so, then how do you reconcile our truth-seeking nature with the fact that seeking the truth brings us discomfort?

(Optional) Before beginning the debate, read Ted Chiang’s “The Truth of Fact, The Truth of Feeling.”

Part Three

Choose one or more of these debate questions to pose to students. Ask each student to decide on their answer to the question(s) and to map out a few logical supporting premises. Next, ask them to consider what an opposing view to theirs would be and how they would rebut it. Finally, let students either pair up with an opponent to debate in person or combine students into teams to perform one class-wide debate.

1. Is it better to be comfortable with illusion or uncomfortable with truth? Use examples from modern life to support your argument.
2. Plato and Socrates speak of truth as a singular, constant ideal. They believed truth was objective and eternal. Protagoras (490-420 BCE) and other Sophists believed that truth is relative and subjective, and thus different for each individual person. Do you believe truth is relative or objective? Explain your answer. Spend some time researching the Sophists to prepare your argument.
3. Do you agree that a democratic society should be ruled by people with the kind of knowledge that Plato describes? Why or why not?
4. Should a society force people, through law and institutions, to achieve the higher order of knowledge that Plato describes? Why or why not?
5. (Optional) Plato and Chiang present competing obstacles to knowing the truth: ignorance vs. the human desire to protect our existing beliefs. Which do you think is the greater obstacle? Explain your answer.
6. (Optional) Does technology change our relationship with the truth? Explain your answer.
7. Artificial intelligence has greater access to and capacity to retain knowledge than any human alive. Does this mean that artificial intelligence sees the truth more clearly than any human could? If so, then should artificial intelligence rule our society? Consider how Plato might answer this question, as well.
8. (Optional) Does our natural inclination for storytelling in the form of cultural stories and personal memories impede our quest for truth? Another question to think about in this debate is: does storytelling make truth? Explain your answer.

Part Four — Writing Prompt

Give students as much time as they need in the classroom to respond to the prompt of their choice. The supplemental reading can be done for homework, but the writing should be done in the classroom.

Compare and Contrast. Ask students to read “Learning to Read and Write,” a chapter from Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass as a comparative text.

Explore text here: Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, Chapter VII

gutenberg.org/files/23/23-h/23-h.htm

What similarities and differences do you notice in the way the two authors treat ignorance, knowledge and truth?

Argument.

Read “Meditations 1 &2,” by René Descartes.

https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/70091/pg70091-images.html

In an argument essay that considers Plato and Descartes' treatments of deception and reality, explain whether or not it is possible to escape illusion and know the truth. Set up a clear claim, support it with logic and evidence, consider an opposing viewpoint, and then rebut that opposing viewpoint to end your argument on a strong note.

Analysis. Examine Ted Chiang’s understanding of what constitutes truth and reality. What relevance do facts have in truth-seeking? What else is needed to really grasp the truth? To what extent does technology reveal and/or impede the truth? Finally, compare Plato and Chiang’s conceptions of truth and their different interpretations of what we must do to find it.

Plato (428/427–348/347 B.C.E.) was an ancient Greek philosopher who wrote his ideas through dialogue, often using his teacher, Socrates, as his mouthpiece.

In Plato’s book The Republic, he examines political science and moral philosophy, which aims to answer the question, “How should one live?” “Allegory of the Cave” is a brief dialogue within that book that illustrates some of Plato’s ideas about education, democratic leadership and the distinction between appearance and reality.

The dialogue is between Socrates and Glaucon, Plato’s brother, and it begins with a description of a cave in which people have been chained since childhood. These people know nothing but the shadows and echoes that comprise their reality in the cave. Socrates asks Glaucon to imagine what would happen if one of those people managed to leave the cave and step out into the sunlight. He describes the initial discomfort the person would experience, followed by revelation and deep learning of the world beyond the shadows that they had always known. Next, Socrates asks Glaucon to imagine how the other people in the cave would react if this person returned to them and explained what he saw.

This allegory helps us understand education as our own liberation from the chains of unexamined assumptions about what truth really is. It is a difficult and, as Socrates describes it, a truly uncomfortable process of training our eyes to see anew in the light. The dialogue ends with a discussion of the responsibility that comes with a transformative education.

The pursuit of truth is central to Plato’s vision of a valuable education, and such a pursuit requires inquiry, courage, and a willingness to push through the pain of searing light in our eyes. Plato believed that those few who really fought hard enough to liberate themselves from chains and shadows would experience the rewards of knowing the “ideal forms of things.” The ideal form of a sunflower, for example, is the perfect model all the sunflowers strive to imitate. The same is true for love. Goodness. Justice. The versions we know in the “visible” world are just pale imitations of the ideal forms of these notions. It takes a mind that can perceive the truth of things beyond appearances to really understand what the ideal form of justice, goodness and love really are.

Frederick Douglass was a writer and statesman who was born into slavery in the nineteenth century. He examines the ideas central to Plato’s writing in a chapter of his memoir titled, “Learning to Read and Write,” in which he treats his education as a path toward freedom and truth. As he learns to read, he begins to understand the injustice of slavery and the forces designed to keep him powerless. His awakening closely resembles the prisoner’s journey in Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave,” in which a person escapes a world of shadows and gradually sees reality more clearly. For both Douglass and Plato, seeking truth is difficult and even painful, because knowledge destroys comforting illusions. Yet once the truth is seen, it becomes impossible to return willingly to ignorance.

Two optional additional readings are available in this unit: Ted Chiang’s short story, “The Truth of Fact, The Truth of Feeling,” and René Descartes’ “Meditations 1&2.” They both take different approaches to exploring the difficulty of knowing whether our beliefs correspond to reality. While Plato’s prisoners mistake shadows for truth because those shadows are the only world they have ever known, Descartes questions whether the senses, dreams, or even an evil deceiver might make all human experience unreliable. Chiang brings this problem into the modern world by showing how memory, technology, and recorded evidence can challenge the stories people tell themselves about the past and about who they are. He raises questions about where in a matrix of facts, subjectivity, history, memory and increasingly powerful technology the truth actually exists.

Together, Plato, Descartes and Chiang suggest that false beliefs arise from many sources: ignorance, unreliable perception, imperfect memory, our relationship to technology, and the human desire to preserve a comfortable understanding of reality. Each text therefore asks whether truth can be reached simply by gaining more information, or whether genuine knowledge also requires the willingness to question the assumptions through which we interpret the world.

This unit raises questions about how students define justice and what the responsibility of the individual is when law and justice don’t align. The following questions take students through independent group work, a Socratic seminar, debate, and several options for writing assignments. The class activities cross reference philosophical and political texts from the ancient world and the modern one, to help students think about how we navigate our moral obligations to family, to manmade laws, to higher or divine laws, to the self, and to society.

Part One — Group Work

Assign students to work in groups to discuss the following questions. This will help them prepare for the Socratic discussion and debate that follow.

1. Why does Creon refuse to allow Polyneices to be buried?
2. Why does Antigone decide to bury Polyneices even though she knows the punishment? What is the importance of the burial ritual to her?
3. Why does Ismene refuse to help Antigone bury their brother? What do you make of her statement that Antigone has “lost her mind” but holds to “the love of her loved ones” in lines 98-99?
4. What is the narrative function of the chorus? How do they influence your understanding of the other dramatic elements in the play, such as character, conflict and setting?
5. What persuasive appeal does Haemon make to his father on behalf of Antigone? How does his appeal to his father differ from Antigone’s presentation of her case to Creon?
6. Does Antigone have the power to save herself from a death sentence? Why does she choose to accept Creon’s punishment?
7. Antigone and Creon are each driven by principle and tragic flaw. What are Creon’s principles? What are Antigone’s principles? What is Creon’s tragic flaw? What is Antigone’s tragic flaw?
8. What makes the ending of this play so tragic, in your opinion?

1. Explain what this story reveals about the importance of the following virtues in ancient Greek society: honor, tradition and piety (or pleasing the gods). With your group, think about how these virtues influence the characters’ understandings of what justice is.
2. Eteocles and Polyneices died fighting in “The War of the Seven Against Thebes.” Research this war and then think about why Creon was so unforgiving of Polyneices’ role in it. With your group, consider whether or not there was justice for Thebes in Creon’s decision.
3. Explain what this play reveals about the power of curses and prophecies in the ancient Greek imagination. Cite evidence from the text of a particular curse or prophecy with direct bearing on a character’s thoughts or decisions. In what way do curses and prophecies influence the way characters see and think about justice?

Part Two — Socratic Seminar

Arrange the desks in a circle and lead a Socratic discussion with the following prompts and questions.

1. What is the difference between law and justice? Do you believe justice would have been served if Creon had allowed Polyneices to have a burial ceremony? Why or why not? What moral authority has the most influence on your answer?
2. To what extent does perspective control how we see justice and injustice? If you answer that perspective does influence our sense of justice, then how can we know that our actions are truly, objectively just?
3. In lines 84-97, Sophocles reveals Antigone’s sense of obligation to a higher law than Creon’s. Examine what these lines reveal about Antigone’s character and her sense of moral duty. Examine what they reveal about Ismene’s sense of moral duty. Do you believe one of these characters has a greater grasp of justice than the other? Explain your answer.
4. If you had fought for Thebes in “The War of the Seven Against Thebes,” do you think you would be more sympathetic to Creon’s view of justice or Antigone’s?
5. If you were in Ismene’s position, do you think you would have reacted to Antigone or Creon differently than Ismene did? Explain your answer.
6. In ancient Greek, there are a few different words used to describe a king. One is “tyrannus,” which means an absolute ruler unbound by law or constitution. We derive the word tyrant from this root. Another common term for king or ruler was “basileus,” which describes the title of king without the implication of despotism. Do you think Sophocles’ audience would have used the word “tyrannus” or “basileus” to describe Creon? Why?
7. On line 636, Haemon tells Creon, “Give me good advice and I will follow it.” Analyze what Haemon is asking of his father in this statement and what it reveals about justice as both a personal virtue and one rooted in inter-generational cultural values. Was Creon able to give Haemon what he wanted? In what way did the ensuing conversation affect the fates of both of these men? Do you believe either man had a stronger claim to having justice on his side in the exchange between them?
8. Creon and Antigone would both describe themselves as obedient to the moral laws that they deem supreme. Have you ever found yourself in a conflict where you and the person with whom you disagreed both believed you held the moral high ground? How did that conviction make you behave and feel about the other person? Do you take a different view of that conflict after reading Antigone?
9. Aristotle describes tragedy as an art form that elicits “fear and pity” from the audience. The pity is for the tragic characters consigned to a cruel fate that they could have avoided, and the fear is rooted in our sense that their fate could be our own. Examine what and who in this play makes you feel fear and pity. Explain your answer.
10. On line 525, Creon says, “As long as I live, I will not be ruled by a woman.” What does he mean when he says this to Antigone? What role does gender play in the power dynamics of this play? To what extent does power determine what justice is? To what extent do we perceive justice relative to our own relationship to power?

Part Three — Debate

Choose one or more of these debate questions to pose to students. Ask each student to decide on their answer to the question(s) and to map out a few logical supporting premises. Next, ask them to consider what an opposing view to theirs would be and how they would rebut it. Finally, let students either pair up with an opponent to debate in person or combine students into teams to perform one class-wide debate.

1. Is Antigone’s choice to risk her life in order to perform her brother’s burial ritual a noble act? Why or why not?
2. Do you think human nature is naturally inclined toward justice? Why or why not?
3. Is a person morally obligated to disobey an authority who is blind to justice or unjust? In your answer, consider that authority does not always come from the law. In a democratic society, authority is also found in those who uphold popular or dominant viewpoints. For further reading in preparation for this debate, consider this excerpt from Alexis de Tocqueville’s short essay, “The Tyranny of the Majority” and Henry David Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience.”

   The Tyranny of the Majority, by Alexis de Tocqueville

   Democracy in America(1835)

   "A majority taken collectively is only an individual, whose opinions, and frequently whose interests, are opposed to those of another individual, who is styled a minority. If it be admitted that a man possessing absolute power may misuse that power by wronging his adversaries, why should not a majority be liable to the same reproach? . . .It is in the examination of the exercise of thought in the United States that we clearly perceive how far the power of the majority surpasses all the powers with which we are acquainted in Europe. . . . I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America.In America the majority raises formidable barriers around the liberty of opinion; within these barriers an author may write what he pleases, but woe to him if he goes beyond them. Not that he is in danger of an auto-da-fe but he is exposed to continued obloquy and persecution. His political career is closed forever, since he has offended the only authority that is able to open it. Every sort of compensation, even that of celebrity, is refused to him. Before making public his opinions he thought he had sympathizers; now it seems to him that he has none any more since he has revealed himself to everyone; then those who blame him criticize loudly and those who think as he does keep quiet and move away without courage. He yields at length, overcome by the daily effort which he has to make, and subsides into silence, as if he felt remorse for having spoken the truth. . . ."

Henry David Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience”

gutenberg.org/ebooks/71

Part Four — Writing Prompt

Compare and Contrast Writing Project:

1. Read Martin Luther King’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” and compare and contrast the treatment of justice and the conflict between state law and individual conscience in King’s letter and Antigone.

2. Read Chinua Achebe’s “Dead Men’s Path.” Compare and contrast the treatment of death rituals, power, conscience and justice in Achebe’s story and Antigone.

Further Writing on Justice:

1. A philosopher named John Rawls invented the following thought experiment at Harvard: Imagine that you must design a fair society, but you do not know who you will be in that society. You don’t know what you will look like, what your talents will be, whether you will be rich or poor, whether or not you will be healthy, etc. Without knowing yourself, you will be without self-interest or bias in the task of designing a fair society. He called this thought experiment “The Original Position.” He believed designing a society from behind “the veil of ignorance” was the most effective way to figure out what the most just possible society would really look like.

Read about John Rawls and “The Original Position.” Then put on the veil of ignorance and design the most just society you can imagine without knowing who you will be in it. Describe that society. What makes it just?

2. Read this passage from Cicero’s “Should We Pursue Justice?” Respond to Cicero with your own assertion of whether or not humans are naturally just.

Should People Pursue Justice?

Selections from: On the Commonwealth

By Marcus Tullius Cicero

(Written in Rome between 54 and 51 B.C.—Discovered in fragments in the 19th century)

"XI. Philus: [If justice were natural, then nature] would have laid down our laws; all peoples would be subject to the same laws; and the same people would not be subject to different laws at different times. Now, I put the question to you: If it be the duty of a just man and a good citizen to obey the laws, what laws should he obey? Shall he obey any laws that happen to prevail? But surely rectitude does admit of inconsistency, and nature does not permit different standards of conduct. Laws, therefore, are obeyed because of the penalties they may inflict and not because of our sense of justice. Consequently, the law has no sanction in nature.

It follows, then, that humans are not just by nature. Or, can we believe that, while there is diversity in styles of human legislation, good people follow true justice rather than that which is merely thought to be just?

(Missing leaves of original document)

XII: If a man wishes to act in accordance with justice, and yet is ignorant of the divine* law, he will honor the enactments of his own people as if they were the true law, although they are in general the product, not of justice, but of self-interest. Why indeed have diverse and unlike codes of law been established among all peoples? Is it not because each people has enacted for itself such provisions as it thought to be useful in its own conditions of life? But how wide is the divergence between justice and utility may be learned from the case of the Roman people itself.

For unless I am mistaken, every kingdom or empire is acquired by war and extended by victory, and furthermore, the chief element in war and victory is the capture and overthrow of cities. Such acts are impossible without doing injury to the gods. Hence, the irreligious acts of the Roman people equal the number of its trophies; every triumph over a people is a triumph over its gods; the collections of booty equal in number the surviving images of captive gods.

Therefore, men have established laws to serve their own advantages. These laws, of course, were different to suit the different characters of peoples, and even in the same people they were often modified to accord with changing conditions.

All human beings, as well as all other living creatures, are led by nature to consult their own self-interest. Hence, either there is no such thing as justice, or, if there is, it is the height of folly, since a person would do injury to himself by consulting the interests of others.

The Greek philosopher Carneades wrote: Ever to count your country’s welfare first. And what is a country? For all those who have the power of life and death over a people are tyrants, but they prefer to take the name which belongs to Jupiter the Most High and to call themselves kings. And, when a group of men controls the commonwealth by virtue of their wealth, their birth, or any advantages they happen to possess, they form an oligarchy, but they call themselves leading citizens. And, again, if the people have the supreme power and if all public business is carried on at their pleasure, we have what is called liberty (but what, in fact, is license).

Now, when the citizens fear each other, when man fears man and class fears class, no one feels secure; and, as a result, a contract, as we call it, is made between the commons and those with power. Thus, neither nature nor deliberate choice is the mother of justice. Weakness is the mother of justice. For since a man must choose one of three possibilities—either to act unjustly without suffering injustice, or both to act unjustly and suffer injustice, or neither to act unjustly nor suffer injustice—the best choice in each man’s self-interest is to act unjustly without suffering the consequences, if you can. The second choice is neither to act unjustly nor to suffer injustice. But, the most wretched condition of all is an incessant warfare in which men both do and suffer injustice.

XVII: I put the question to you: Let us suppose that there are two men, one of whom is thoroughly upright and honorable, a man of consummate justice and unique integrity, while the other is a man of extraordinary depravity and shamelessness. And let us assume that the state in which they live is so misguided as to believe the good man a monster of unspeakable criminality, while, on the other hand, it considers the scoundrel to be a model of uprightness and good faith. Let us suppose further that, in conformity with this error on the part of all the citizens, the good man is persecuted, harassed, has his hands cut off and his eyes gouged out, is condemned, cast into chains, tortured by fire, exiled, and reduced to destitution. Finally, let us assume he is universally regarded as justly meriting his wretched condition. On the other hand, let us suppose that the evil man is praised, honored, and esteemed by all; that all sorts of offices, civil and military, and every form of influence and wealth are conferred upon him; and then he is universally held to be an excellent man. Who under these circumstances will be so mad as to doubt which of the two lots he would prefer?

What is true of individuals is also true of states. There is no country so stupid as not to prefer unjust dominion to just subjection.

Carneades investigated the tension between a man’s desire to be just and his instinct to save his own life. For he said: Certainly justice requires us not to kill human beings and not in any way to touch another’s property. What, then, will the just man do if he is in a shipwreck and someone weaker than himself has found a plank [on which to keep afloat]? Will he not push the weaker man off the plank, that he may get on it himself and thus make his escape? Especially when there is no one in the middle of the sea to bear witness against him? If he is prudent, he will do this, for he will inevitably lose his own life if he does not. If, however, he would rather die than raise his hand against the other man, he is indeed just, but he is a fool, because in sparing another man’s life he fails to spare his own.

Similarly, does not a nation under attack act in the interest of its country, first?

Thus the difference between justice and prudence. Prudence saves the life of the man at sea, and justice forfeits it. Which of these qualities is truly inborn in human nature?

Laelius: There is in fact a true law—namely, right reason—which is in accordance with nature, applies to all men, and is unchangeable and eternal. By its commands this law summons men to the performance of their duties; by its prohibitions it restrains them from doing wrong. Its commands and prohibitions always influence good men, but are without effect upon the bad. To invalidate this law by human legislation is never morally right, nor is it permissible ever to restrict its operation, and to annul it wholly is impossible. The man who will not obey this binding law will abandon his better self, and, in denying the true nature of a man, will thereby suffer the severest of penalties, though he has escaped all the other consequences which men call punishment.

Sophocles’ Antigone is one of the most important surviving works of ancient Greek tragedy. First performed in Athens in the fifth century BCE, the play belongs to a culture in which drama explored important issues in civic, religious, and political life. Greek tragedies were performed at major festivals, where citizens gathered to watch stories about gods, heroes, families, war, justice, and the limits of human power. These plays allowed Athenians to think publicly about difficult moral questions facing both individuals and the city.

Antigone takes place after a civil war in Thebes. Two brothers, Eteocles and Polyneices, have killed each other fighting for control of the city. Their uncle Creon, now king, declares that Eteocles will receive an honorable burial, while Polyneices, whom Creon considers a traitor, must remain unburied. In ancient Greek culture, burial was a sacred duty owed to the dead and to the gods. Antigone, sister of the two dead brothers, decides to bury Polyneices despite Creon’s law. Her act sets the central conflict of the play in motion.

The play is often read as a conflict between divine law and human law, or between conscience and political authority. Antigone believes that some duties are older and higher than the commands of any ruler. Creon believes that the survival of the city depends on obedience to law, especially after civil war. Both characters are unyielding in their convictions. Antigone is determined and supposes the righteousness of divine law to be on her side. Creon begins with a reasonable concern for public order, but becomes increasingly rigid, proud, and unable to listen.

A major idea in the play is the Greek concept of hubris, often translated as excessive pride or overstepping human limits. Creon’s tragedy comes from his refusal to recognize that political power has limits. He treats his own decree as absolute and dismisses the claims of family, religion, public opinion, and tradition. By the time he realizes his mistake, the damage cannot be undone. Antigone’s tragedy is borne of a combination of fate and character. She is courageous and moral for challenging Creon, but her convictions make her righteous and inflexible, which dooms her to an abandonment of reason and, ultimately, a tragic end. The themes in this play range from the personal themes of independence of mind, cultural themes about the importance of rituals and traditions, and political themes of civil disobedience and the conflict between individual conscience and the edict of the state.

Antigone is a tragedy, which Aristotle defined as a form of theater that evokes fear and pity from its audience, and in which the hero of the story experiences a tragic downfall due to a fatal character flaw. Creon’s refusal to hear a contradictory view is one of his fatal flaws. At one point, the chorus accuses Antigone of being “impetuous,” pointing to one of the fatal flaws in her character. The crux of a tragedy is the haunting truth that the outcome could have been avoided. If only Creon had listened, or if Antigone had reasoned without passion, both tragic endings could have been prevented.

One reason why Greek tragedy is timeless is because it captures the reality of human moral drama. In Antigone, it is easy to see validity in Antigone’s position and in Creon’s. There is no good vs. evil construct in the play. They are just two flawed characters with easily understood motives who become embroiled in their own tragic undoing. The audience experiences the frustration of a rational observer who sees opportunity for compromise or reason that the emotion and conviction of each character eclipses from their sight.

The tragic tale of Antigone asks what happens when two deeply held principles collide: loyalty to the city and loyalty to family; obedience to law and obedience to conscience; order and justice; compromise and moral certainty. Its lasting power comes from the fact that these conflicts still feel alive. When should a person obey the law? When is it right to resist? Can a society survive without order? Can it be just if its laws violate basic human duties?

For students today, Antigone offers a way to think about the relationship between the individual and the state. It asks whether law is always the same thing as justice, whether moral responsibility can require disobedience, and whether power becomes dangerous when it refuses to listen. More than two thousand years after it was first performed, the play remains central because it dramatizes a problem every society must face: what should a person do when the law says one thing, but conscience says another?

This unit offers students connective texts to broaden, deepen and modernize the consideration of justice. Martin Luther King’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” addresses the same conflict between individual conscience and state law during the Civil Rights Movement. Alexis de Tocqueville’s excerpt from Democracy in America, written in 1835, considers the conflict between the individual and the tyranny of the majority. In “Dead Men’s Path,” Chinua Achebe examines the conflict between obligation to state law vs. obligation to a higher law in Nigeria in 1949, during the final stretch of English colonial rule. John Rawls, a twentieth-century Harvard philosopher, weighs the real considerations of justice in his thought experiment called “The Original Position,” which challenges students to adopt something called a “veil of ignorance” to imagine a fair society without knowing who they will be in that society. Finally, an excerpt from Cicero questions if justice is really inherent to the human condition.

This unit examines both the power of story-telling and the ancient sense of duty to family, country and destiny. After reading excerpts of Virgil’s Aeneid and Bhagavad Gita, students will think about whether or not values of duty and honor still exist for them today. If so, then to what and whom do they owe a sense of duty? What responsibilities or sacrifices does that duty demand of them?

Virgil’s Aeneid, Book II:

Part One:Group Work

Assign students to work in groups to discuss the following questions. This will prepare them for Socratic discussion and debate.

1. The opening line of Virgil’s Aeneid, Book II reads, “All were attentive to the godlike man.” Why does Virgil describe Aeneas this way, and what importance does Aeneas have to Rome?
2. What did the Trojan priest, Laocoon, try to convince the Trojans to think about before accepting the gift of the horse? What fate did Laocoon suffer? How did the Trojans react to Laocoon’s warning and to his death?
3. Find an example of Aeneas referencing the role of fate in the fall of Troy. Why do you think fate is an important theme in this epic poem?
4. What part did Sinon play in the sacking of Troy? Aeneas describes his speech as a “perfidious art.” What does this mean? Find an example from Sinon’s speech to support this description.
5. Explain what Aeneas is saying about his sense of duty to his country in the following passage:

   “Heav’n, that well-born souls inspires,/Prompts me thro’ lifted swords and rising fires/To run where clashing arms and clamour calls,/And rush undaunted to defend the walls.”

6. How did Virgil describe Priam’s feelings about his own death? What would you say he cared about most in the moments preceding his death? How did Priam’s death affect Aeneas?
7. Aeneas was compelled by several senses of duty to his country, to his family, and to his destiny. Did he have to make any choices between those duties? Provide an example.

(Optional) Group Project: 1. Do some research into four characters in this poem who would have been famous to classical audiences: Odysseus (Ulysses), Helen, Hector and Cassandra. Who was Odysseus in Homer’s Odyssey and Iliad? How does Virgil’s perspective cast Odysseus (Ulysses) in a different light? Who was Helen and why would Aeneas have been so angry with her? Who was Hector and what was his role in Homer’s Iliad? How did he die? With this in mind, what importance can be attributed to the appearance of his ghost before the sacking of Troy? Who was Cassandra? What warning did she give to the Trojans? And how did Cassandra’s story continue after the Trojan War?

2. In your group, think about the importance of strength, fidelity, honor and personal sacrifice in the storytelling and characterization of both Virgil and Homer. Do you think we value those virtues the same way today?

3. Draw an inference: Based on what you have read thus far, what was the relationship between truth and virtue in ancient Greece and Rome? Do you think we see the relationship between virtue and truth differently in modern American society?

Part Two

Arrange the desks in a circle and lead a Socratic discussion with the following prompts and questions.

1. Can you relate to Aeneas’ devotion to his country? Do you think his sense of duty and honor were products of his time, or are those timeless virtues? Have you ever considered your own sense of duty or honor? To what or whom do you have a sense of duty, and what does that duty oblige you to do?
2. In Book II, Aeneas has nothing but a story to tell. The story stitches together what was and what is meant to be. Explain the significance of story-telling in understanding our places in history. What effect do you think Virgil’s retelling of Homer’s tale about the Trojan War had on his contemporary Roman readers? In what way was the emperor Augustus using Virgil’s story as a powerful weapon of his own?
3. Considering the power of story-telling, do you think it is more devastating to lose one’s city to war or to lose one’s stories to erasure or revision? Explain your answer.
4. Aeneas does not question the need to make sacrifices in fulfilling his higher obligations. He is even willing to sacrifice himself. Can you relate to this willingness to make sacrifices for what is important? Think back to Plato’s Allegory of the Cave and ask yourself how you really know what is important and worth sacrificing for.
5. When Aeneas first saw Helen, he had a desire for vengeance, but the spirit of his mother helped him see that vengeance was not honorable. Why does Virgil see honor in war but none in vengeance? Do you agree with this view? Why or why not?
6. To what extent does Aeneas have free will in this story? In what ways do duty and honor conflict with free will and the desires of the heart? Do you see those conflicts in Virgil’s Aeneid? Have you experienced those conflicts in your own life?

Before beginning the debate, students must read Bhagavad Gita, Chapters 1 and 2, which will be referenced alongside Virgil’s Aeneid for the debate questions.

Bhagavad Gita:

Part Three

Choose one or more of these debate questions to pose to students. Ask each student to decide on their answer to the question(s) and to map out a few logical supporting premises. Next, ask them to consider what an opposing view to theirs would be and how they would rebut it. Finally, let students either pair up with an opponent to debate in person or combine students into teams to perform one class-wide debate.

1. Arjuna believed it was morally wrong to go to war against people who had once been his friends and teachers. Krishna believed it was morally wrong for Arjuna to abandon his duty to country over an objection of individual conscience. Do you agree with Krishna or Arjuna in this conflict? Must a good leader prioritize their public duty even when it conflicts with their personal feelings? Another consideration for this debate is: what is necessary for the continuation of a civilization? Can a society survive if individuals place personal interest above public responsibility?
2. Is war ever morally justified? Both the Aeneid and Bhagavad Gita present arguments in favor of going to war as a moral obligation. How do you see it?
3. Would you rather follow Arjuna or Aeneas into battle? Why? In your answer, think about the relationship between conscience, public duty and leadership.

Part Four — Writing Prompt

1. Analysis. Read “The Guest House,” by Sufi poet Mewlana Jalaluddin Rumi. In what way does Rumi see the tension between the will of the individual and the duty we have to a higher power? Compare Rumi’s view of duty and moral obligation to Aeneas’ or Krishna’s.
2. Argument. In epic storytelling of the ancient world, great heroes arose as representatives of entire cultures. Aeneas is an example of a hero who exemplified the spirit of the Roman kingdom. Do you think a hero like Aeneas loses his individuality in carrying out his duty? Do you think his individuality is strengthened by his fulfillment of his duty and the legacy that secures for him? In an argument essay, explain how you see the conflict between the will of the individual and the obligation, if any, that the individual owes to a power higher than, or simply larger than, the self.
3. Research and Analysis. If we believe we owe a sense of duty to a higher power or cause, how do we know that it’s an honorable cause? Read Hannah Arendt’s “The Banality of Evil” and do some research to understand its context. Make a connection between the human virtues of duty, honor, justice and fidelity and the way Arendt describes the greater systems that can potentially exploit those virtues. In your essay, consider how we can know that we are making sacrifices and taking risks for good, rather than evil. Think about what the difference really is between good and evil when both can build identical systems in which humans will participate in identical ways.

Virgil's Aeneid, Book II

Written by Virgil close to the year 30 BCE, the Aeneid was commissioned during the reign of Augustus to tell the legendary story of Rome's origins. Augustus commissioned Virgil to write this tale, because he wanted the poet’s established thematic focus on hard work, sensibility and religion to reclaim order in an empire that had just experienced civil war.

The poem follows the Trojan hero Aeneas, who escapes the destruction of Troy and undertakes a long journey that will ultimately lead to the founding of the Roman people. Modeled after the epic traditions of Homer, the Aeneid explores themes of duty, sacrifice, leadership, and the tension between personal desires and obligations to a greater purpose.

Book II is one of the most dramatic sections of the epic. Speaking as a guest in the court of Queen Dido, Aeneas recounts the final night of Troy. He tells how the Greeks deceived the Trojans with the famous wooden horse, how the city was invaded under cover of darkness, and how Troy was consumed by fire and violence. Amid the chaos, Aeneas struggles to protect his family while coming to terms with the realization that his homeland cannot be saved. Rather than dying with his city, he accepts the painful responsibility of preserving its future by leading the survivors into exile.

As you read, consider how Virgil presents leadership during times of catastrophe. Why does Aeneas choose survival over a heroic last stand? How does the fall of Troy become the beginning of something new? How is his sense of duty divided? Book II invites readers to reflect on the costs of leadership, the responsibilities individuals owe to past and future generations, and the ways societies preserve hope even in moments of devastating loss.

Bhagavad Gita, Chapters 1–2

The Bhagavad Gita ("The Song of the Lord") forms part of the larger Mahabharata, one of the world's longest and most influential epic poems. Although the Mahabharata recounts a vast conflict between rival branches of a royal family, the Bhagavad Gita narrows its focus to a single moment immediately before battle begins. Standing between two massive armies, the warrior prince Arjuna realizes that he must fight against relatives, teachers, and lifelong friends. Overcome with grief and moral uncertainty, he lowers his bow and questions whether any victory could justify such a terrible cost.

Chapters 1 and 2 introduce the central philosophical conversation of the Gita. Arjuna's charioteer, Krishna, who is ultimately revealed to be a divine figure, responds by challenging Arjuna's understanding of duty, justice, life, and death. Krishna argues that individuals must fulfill their moral responsibilities without becoming attached to personal gain or fear of loss. The dialogue explores ideas of courage, selfless action, and the relationship between one's individual conscience and a larger moral order.

Like Aeneas in the Aeneid, Arjuna faces a profound conflict between personal emotion and public duty. Both works ask what leaders owe to others when confronted with impossible choices. Yet the two epics offer different answers rooted in their respective cultural and religious traditions.

Together, Virgil’s Aeneid and Bhagavad Gita illustrate virtues of duty, honor and responsibility that will shed light on the way we think about those virtues today. How do we find meaning and hope in times of crisis? To what or whom do we have a sense of duty, and how do we fulfill it? How do we reconcile tension between duty and conscience? The unit ends with a final word from Sufi poet Mewlana Jalaluddin Rumi and philosopher, Hannah Arendt.

This lesson focuses on defining happiness through the ages, starting with Aristotle, whose concept of Eudaimonia is still believed to be a gold standard for understanding what fulfills the mind and soul in a life well-lived. From ancient Athens to the twentieth century, students will be faced with different conceptions of the good life, and they will be asked to think more deeply about what makes them happy and what they want from their own lives.

Part One

Assign students to work in groups to discuss the following questions.

1. Who do you believe is Aristotle’s intended audience? What context clues inform your answer?
2. How do you interpret the phrase, “the chief Good” that we are all after? Think back to Plato’s thoughts about where the ideal of goodness can be found. Do you notice any connection between Plato’s conception of goodness and Aristotle’s?
3. What explanation does Aristotle give for finding happiness to be the chief good?
4. The following phrase is often associated with Aristotle’s idea of the highest, most fulfilling form of human happiness, also known as Eudaemonia. Read this again and discuss with your group mates what he means by the following terms: “working of the soul,” “actions with reason,” “Good of Man,” and “Excellence.” How would you define “Eudaemonia” in your own words?

“If we assume the work of Man(kind) to be life of a certain kind, that is to say a working of the soul, and actions with reason, and of a good man to do these things well and nobly, and in fact everything is finished off well in the way of the excellence which peculiarly belongs to it: if all this is so, then the Good of Man comes to be “a working of the Soul in the way of Excellence,” or, if Excellence admits of degrees, in the way of the best and most perfect Excellence” (Aristotle Chapter 5).

1. Read the following passage with your group mates. Do you agree with the logic of this statement? Explain why or why not.

“Their life too is in itself pleasant: for the feeling of pleasure is a mental sensation, and that is to each pleasant of which he is said to be fond: a horse, for instance, to him who is fond of horses, and a sight to him who is fond of sights: and so in like manner just acts to him who is fond of justice, and more generally the things in accordance with virtue to him who is fond of virtue. Now in the case of the multitude of men the things which they individually esteem pleasant clash, because they are not such by nature, whereas to the lovers of nobleness those things are pleasant which are such by nature: but the actions in accordance with virtue are of this kind, so that they are pleasant both to the individuals and also in themselves.

So then their life has no need of pleasure as a kind of additional appendage, but involves pleasure in itself. For, besides what I have just mentioned, a man is not a good man at all who feels no pleasure in noble actions,[25] just as no one would call that man just who does not feel pleasure in acting justly…and if this be so, then the actions in accordance with virtue must be in themselves pleasurable. Then again they are certainly good and noble, and each of these in the highest degree; if we are to take as right the judgment of the good man, for he judges as we have said.

Thus then Happiness is most excellent, most noble, and most pleasant…”

(Optional) Group Projects

1. Think back to your reading of Frederick Douglass’ “Learning to Read and Write.” What was the chief good that he was seeking? How do you think Douglass might respond to or add to Aristotle’s conception of happiness if the two men were in conversation?
2. Happiness has been discussed in philosophy for millennia. One famous philosophy is built on a principle of weighing moral decisions based on what will cause the most happiness for the most people. This philosophy is called utilitarianism, and it was founded by a philosopher named Jeremy Bentham. With your group, look up Bentham’s definition of happiness. Then look up a later utilitarian, John Stuart Mill, and find his definition of happiness. Compare the two definitions and then compare them both to Aristotle’s definition.

Part Two

Arrange the desks in a circle and lead a Socratic discussion with the following prompts and questions.

1. You have read several definitions of happiness. How would you define happiness? Be specific and use Aristotle’s style of logic to explain the rationale behind your definition.
2. Aristotle’s philosophical writing on happiness influenced philosophers all over the world, from Sufi poets to Thomas Aquinas to modern thinkers. What, if any, value is there in looking back at ancient conceptions of happiness? What relevance do these conceptions have to us and our own questions about what it means to be happy today?
3. Think about Jeremy Bentham’s definition of happiness vs. John Stuart Mill’s. Do you think Bentham’s definition is accurate or limited? If we know a person has avoided physical suffering in their life, do we know enough to say that they have lived a happy life? On the other hand, do you think Mill’s definition of happiness is achievable for everyone? Can those who do not appreciate pleasures of a “higher order,” as Mill describes, ever be happy?
4. Eudaemonia hinges on the application of human reason to the work and activity that we do. Can a human who outsources reason to artificial intelligence still experience eudaemonia? Why or why not?
5. What, if any, relationship does a person’s individual happiness have to the moral, physical, economic and environmental health of their society?
6. If there were a utopia, or an ideal society, that promised the highest form of happiness for each of its citizens, would you want to live there? Why or why not.

Part Three

Choose one or more of these debate questions to pose to students. Ask each student to decide on their answer to the question(s) and to map out a few logical supporting premises. Next, ask them to consider what an opposing view to theirs would be and how they would rebut it. Finally, let students either pair up with an opponent to debate in person or combine students into teams to perform one class-wide debate.

1. Are the people of Omelas happy according to your definition of happiness? Explain why or why not.
2. Is the social contract of Omelas acceptable to you? Why or why not? Consider if it would be acceptable to Bentham, Mill or Aristotle.
3. Is leaving Omelas the best moral choice? Why or why not?
4. Is happiness the highest pursuit in a human life? Explain your answer and connect it to the city of Omelas.
5. Omelesians are required to have knowledge of the child. Would you look at the people and city of Omelas differently if you knew they did not have knowledge of the child? Explain your answer.
6. Is a utopian society an achievable goal? Why or why not.

Part Four — Writing Prompts

1. Compare and Contrast. “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas” emphasizes the importance of every citizen’s knowledge of the nature and source of their happiness. Each citizen has to make a choice to accept the sacrifice of the child as a utilitarian payment for the happiness of the many. Or, they may choose to walk away. The choice to change the social contract is not granted to them.

When Malcolm X wrote, “Learning to Read and Write” during his time in prison, he was also faced with knowledge of his own society that made him examine the relationship between one person’s happiness and the social contract they accept. Read “Learning to Read and Write,” by Malcolm X. Compare and contrast the themes of knowledge, free will, justice and personal happiness in each text.

2. Analysis. In the following speech, Hamlet considers the impossible choice between “being and not being,” when being brings so much pain of misery at the truth he knows, but not being surrenders himself to a fate he cannot know. Read through Hamlet’s monologue and decide if you can apply any of its sentiment to the dilemma facing people in Omelas who are weighing whether to stay or to leave.

Hamlet: To be, or not to be, that is the question: Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, And by opposing end them? To die—to sleep, No more; and by a sleep to say we end The heart-ache, and the thousand natural shocks That flesh is heir to: ’tis a consummation Devoutly to be wish’d. To die, to sleep. To sleep, perchance to dream—ay, there’s the rub, For in that sleep of death what dreams may come, When we have shuffled off this mortal coil, Must give us pause. There’s the respect That makes calamity of so long life. For who would bear the whips and scorns of time, The oppressor’s wrong, the proud man’s contumely, The pangs of dispriz’d love, the law’s delay, The insolence of office, and the spurns That patient merit of the unworthy takes, When he himself might his quietus make With a bare bodkin? Who would these fardels bear, To grunt and sweat under a weary life, But that the dread of something after death, The undiscover’d country, from whose bourn No traveller returns, puzzles the will, And makes us rather bear those ills we have Than fly to others that we know not of? Thus conscience does make cowards of us all, And thus the native hue of resolution Is sicklied o’er with the pale cast of thought, And enterprises of great pith and moment, With this regard their currents turn awry And lose the name of action.

Context for What Is Happiness

For thousands of years, philosophers have asked one of humanity's oldest and most enduring questions: What does it mean to live a happy life? While happiness is often understood today as a feeling of pleasure or personal satisfaction, the thinkers in this unit challenge us to consider whether happiness is something deeper—something connected to virtue, moral responsibility, justice, or the well-being of others.

In Nichomachean Ethics, one of the foundational works of Western philosophy, Aristotle argues that true happiness, or eudaemonia (also spelled eudaimonia), is the result of living a life of virtue, reason, and moral excellence. According to Aristotle, happiness is not a passing emotion or the product of material achievement, like wealth or fame. Those things are nice, but they don’t have any value on his happiness index. Instead, Aristotle values the development of good character, the life of the mind and the soul, and the fulfillment of one’s potential. This is why eudaemonia, is often translated to mean “flourishing.”

In the nineteenth century, the English philosophers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill proposed a very different answer. Their philosophy, known as utilitarianism, argues that the moral value of an action should be judged by its consequences. Bentham maintained that the best action is the one that produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people, treating pleasure and pain as the ultimate measures of morality. Mill agreed with Bentham's basic principle, but he argued that not all pleasures are equal. Intellectual, artistic, and moral pursuits, he claimed, represent "higher pleasures" that contribute more fully to human happiness than simple physical enjoyment. Ursula LeGuin’s short story, “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas,” puts the philosophy of utilitarianism to the ultimate test, questioning whether or not happiness is real if it relies on a deliberate injustice. And the writing assignments add the voices Malcolm X and Shakespeare to the discussion.

Taken together, these readings trace the evolution of one of philosophy's central debates. Is happiness primarily about pleasure, personal virtue, collective well-being, or something else entirely? Can happiness be measured? Are some forms of happiness more valuable than others? And what happens when the pursuit of happiness conflicts with justice, compassion, or individual rights? By comparing these texts, students will examine competing visions of the good life and consider what responsibilities we bear to ourselves and others.

In this unit, students will think about what it really means to live a “well-examined life” and to know that one’s thoughts belong to one original author. This discussion is most fruitful when it follows students’ consideration of themes such as duty, justice, truth, and the responsibility that comes with education. When they arrive at this unit, they will be ready to think about the self in broader and deeper terms, consider the influence of society on the self, and question how anyone really knows who they are. Through group work, research, Socratic seminar, debate and writing assignments, this lesson plan explores the freedom, power and danger of being a free thinker.

Part One

Assign students to work in groups to discuss the following questions.

1. Who is the intended audience of Socrates’ speech? What is his purpose in giving the speech?
2. What are the accusations made against Socrates? Who are his accusers?
3. Summarize what Socrates learned during his search for a man wiser than himself, and then discuss your interpretation of his meaning in this passage:

“He, O men, is the wisest, who, like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing. And so I go about the world, obedient to the god, and search and make enquiry into the wisdom of any one, whether citizen or stranger, who appears to be wise; and if he is not wise, then in vindication of the oracle I show him that he is not wise; and my occupation quite absorbs me, and I have no time to give either to any public matter of interest or to any concern of my own, but I am in utter poverty by reason of my devotion to the god.”

1. One accusation against Socrates is that he is “corrupting the youth.” He rebuts this in the following passage. Interpret his meaning and then discuss with your group mates whether or not you believe his argument.

“Young men of the richer classes, who have not much to do, come about me of their own accord; they like to hear the pretenders examined, and they often imitate me, and proceed to examine others; there are plenty of persons, as they quickly discover, who think that they know something, but really know little or nothing; and then those who are examined by them instead of being angry with themselves are angry with me: This confounded Socrates, they say; this villainous misleader of youth!—and then if somebody asks them, Why, what evil does he practise or teach? they do not know, and cannot tell; but in order that they may not appear to be at a loss, they repeat the ready-made charges which are used against all philosophers about teaching things up in the clouds and under the earth, and having no gods, and making the worse appear the better cause; for they do not like to confess that their pretence of knowledge has been detected—which is the truth; and as they are numerous and ambitious and energetic, and are drawn up in battle array and have persuasive tongues, they have filled your ears with their loud and inveterate calumnies.”

1. Read the dialogue between Socrates and Meletus again with your group mates. Socrates makes the point, in a few different ways, that Meletus is more interested in persecuting Socrates than in actually serving any ideal of justice or protecting youth from his influence. Meletus reaffirms the charges against Socrates, namely that he is guilty of corrupting the youth and atheism. Which man relies on stronger logic to support his argument? Do you find Socrates or Meletus more persuasive in this exchange? Explain your answer.
2. Discuss the following passage with your group. What does it reveal about Socrates, his view of life, purpose and death, and his commitment to what he sees as justice? Do you detect an apology in this statement?

“For I do nothing but go about persuading you all, old and young alike, not to take thought for your persons or your properties, but first and chiefly to care about the greatest improvement of the soul. I tell you that virtue is not given by money, but that from virtue comes money and every other good of man, public as well as private. This is my teaching, and if this is the doctrine which corrupts the youth, I am a mischievous person. But if any one says that this is not my teaching, he is speaking an untruth. Wherefore, O men of Athens, I say to you, do as Anytus bids or not as Anytus bids, and either acquit me or not; but whichever you do, understand that I shall never alter my ways, not even if I have to die many times.”

1. What is the verdict of his trial?
2. What does Socrates want his remaining supporters in Athens to do for his own children when he is gone? Why?

(Optional) Group Project

Look up the painting, “The Death of Socrates,” by Jaques-Louis David (1787). Do some research to understand the full context of this painting. How did Socrates spend his last few hours of life? Who surrounded him? How did he choose to die? With your group, think about why a painter living in 1787, separated from Socrates by nearly two millennia of history, would find so much meaning in this moment. What meaning do you and your group mates find in the painting? What power does it suggest a free thinker holds in their own contemporary society and in history? What danger does it attribute to free thinking?

Part Two

Arrange the desks in a circle and lead a Socratic discussion with the following prompts and questions.

1. Why would a philosopher who questions everything be considered dangerous in ancient Athens or today?
2. Why do you think a number of poets and scholars brought charges against Socrates? What danger did he pose to them? Do you think the institutions that make poets and scholars culturally powerful today would welcome someone like Socrates to question them? Why or why not?
3. A free mind was both the cause of Socrates' punishment and the cause of his lasting fame. We celebrate Socrates' legacy today, but do you think Socrates would be celebrated for his free mind if he were alive today to ask questions? Explain your answer.
4. More than halfway through his speech, Socrates tells his fellow Athenians the following:

   “Strange, indeed, would be my conduct, O men of Athens, if I who, when I was ordered by the generals whom you chose to command me at Potidaea and Amphipolis and Delium, remained where they placed me, like any other man, facing death—if now, when, as I conceive and imagine, God orders me to fulfil the philosopher’s mission of searching into myself and other men, I were to desert my post through fear of death, or any other fear.”

Compare the sense of duty to country and higher powers that have been discussed after reading Virgil’s Aeneid to the sense of duty that Socrates displays in this quote. Think again about how you see the relationship between one’s duty to higher powers (family, country, destiny, religion, etc.) and one’s obligation to be true to oneself.

1. After Socrates says that the most disgraceful sort of ignorance is the “conceit that man knows that which he does not know,” he confidently asserts that he knows the following:

   “but I do know that injustice and disobedience to a better, whether God or man, is evil and dishonourable.”

How can Socrates, or anybody, know what is true, right and just, without becoming guilty of the ignorant conceit of knowing that which we do not know?

1. After the death penalty is announced, Socrates suggests that many in the audience will believe he should have “held his tongue.” Do you think his rhetoric was responsible, at least in part, for the pronouncement of the guilty verdict and the death penalty? Should he have held his tongue, in your opinion? Explain your answer and support it by citing the rationale Socrates presents in his own defense.
2. After he has contemplated the sentence against him and the criticism that his own defense made things worse, he says, “the unexamined life is not worth living.” This phrase is considered the foundation of thousands of years of philosophy that seeks to understand what it means to live a good life. What does this phrase mean to Socrates and what does it mean to you?
3. Socrates makes reference to his own material poverty a number of times in his speech. The vow of poverty is something that both secular and religious scholars have equated with virtue and the kind of life that elevates the mind and the soul. Do you believe this is true? Does material wealth impede one’s ability to live a well-examined life? Why or why not?
4. What does the phrase “double-consciousness” mean in W.E.B. DuBois’ essay, and what does it have to do with the notion of being true to oneself? How does DuBois’ perspective add to the conversation about what it means to be oneself, to know oneself, and to be true to one’s principles and purpose?
5. W.E.B. DuBois talks about seeing himself only as he is revealed through the eyes of his society in America at the turn of the twentieth century. Later, in 1949, Simone De Beauvoir wrote about the power of the male gaze by saying

   “Man defines woman, not in herself, but in relation to himself: she is not considered an autonomous being.”

   Both perspectives are aware of subtle and overt power dynamics at play in the process of becoming a truly autonomous self. What are some power dynamics at work in the modern world that influence just how freely we are able and willing to think?

Part Three

Choose one or more of these debate questions to pose to students. Ask each student to decide on their answer to the question(s) and to map out a few logical supporting premises. Next, ask them to consider what an opposing view to theirs would be and how they would rebut it. Finally, let students either pair up with an opponent to debate in person or combine students into teams to perform one class-wide debate.

1. Emerson writes:

   “Whoso would be a man must be a nonconformist…Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of (my) own mind… the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it”

   (Paragraph 84). Is it realistic for everyone to adopt and live by Emerson's creed of nonconformity? Explain your answer.
2. Do you agree with Emerson’s statement that “society everywhere is in conspiracy” against the individuality of each of its members? Explain your answer.
3. Do you think human nature finds more reward in conformity or nonconformity? Explain your answer.
4. Is it more dangerous or rewarding to be a free thinker? Explain your answer.

Part Four — Writing Prompt

1. Argument. Read “The Present Age,” by Soren Kierkegaard. After thinking about three different philosophers’ views of the conflict between the individual and society, think a little bit about your own philosophy. In an op-ed, or opinion piece, explain whether or not independent thought can exist in a society shaped by public opinion, social media, and constant pressure to conform. If it can exist, then explain how.
2. Narrative. Think about a time in your life when you were rewarded for agreeing with a popular opinion. What motivated you to agree with that popular opinion? How did it feel to be understood and accepted as a result of your position? Now think about a time when you expressed a thought or idea that did not align with anyone else’s. What motivated you to express this thought? How did people respond? How did you feel as a result? Can you compare and contrast the experiences of being part of a crowd versus being an individual outside the crowd? Does this comparison give you any insight into the power and/or danger of being a free thinker?

Who Am I?

Many of history's greatest thinkers have argued that progress often begins with individuals who are willing to question accepted beliefs. This lesson explores one of the central questions of philosophy and democratic life: What responsibilities do individuals have to think for themselves, and what obligations do they owe to society?

The first reading, Plato's Apology, presents the defense speech of Socrates before an Athenian jury in 399 BCE. Charged with corrupting the youth and introducing new gods, Socrates refuses to abandon his lifelong commitment to questioning assumptions and examining accepted beliefs. Rather than pleading for his life, he argues that the pursuit of truth and self-examination are essential to both individual character and the health of a free society. His declaration that "the unexamined life is not worth living" has become one of the defining statements of Western philosophy, challenging readers to consider whether loyalty to truth should outweigh loyalty to public opinion.

More than two thousand years later, W.E.B. DuBois and Simone De Beauvoir add to the conversation about free thinking and individuality by pointing out that inequality in a society denies many the privilege of developing a fully autonomous self to examine. W.E.B. DuBois discusses “double-consciousness” as an idea of seeing and understanding your own identity through the eyes of others. Simone de Beauvoir, who is only referenced in the Socratic seminar, discusses a similar idea in the concept of female identity existing in the “male gaze.” Students will be asked to think about what challenges Socrates might not have considered to becoming one’s authentic self before living a well-examined life.

In “Self-reliance,” American essayist Ralph Waldo Emerson tackles nonconformity. Writing during the nineteenth century, Emerson argued that individuals should trust their own reason, intuition, and conscience rather than conform to the expectations of society. He believed that creativity, originality, and moral courage arise only when individuals are willing to resist the pressure to imitate others. Students will have an opportunity to decide for themselves just how far Emerson’s advice can be taken without creating chaos.

The Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard approached the problem from a different perspective in The Present Age. Observing the growth of mass politics, newspapers, and public opinion, Kierkegaard warned that modern society encourages people to hide within what he famously called "the crowd." Rather than taking personal responsibility for their beliefs and actions, individuals often surrender their judgment to popular opinion or social approval. Kierkegaard argues that authentic living requires the courage to stand apart from the crowd and accept responsibility for one's own choices.

Although these writers lived in different cultures and eras, they share a common concern: the tension between independent thought and social conformity. Each asks whether truth can be discovered by following the majority, whether individuals have a duty to question accepted beliefs, and what sacrifices may be required of those who refuse to conform. At the same time, they differ in their understanding of how independent thinking should be grounded and to what extent and in what way one’s society is in conflict with one’s individuality.

This unit asks students to think about human nature and the best kind of government to make it flourish. Are we naturally cooperative? Are we naturally selfish? Are we dangerous to one another without a system of laws to regulate our behavior? Or are we naturally just? Would we be better off in a society ruled by a sovereign or by an egalitarian social contract? Would we be better off without civilization at all? These are questions raised and debated by many political philosophers throughout history, including Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jaques Rousseau and John Locke. Through reading and discussing essays from each philosopher and The Declaration of Independence, students will imagine what kind of government, laws and social contract give people the greatest chance of fulfilling our highest potential.

Part One

Assign students to work in groups to discuss the following questions.

1. How do you and your group interpret the phrase “the natural condition of mankind?” How do you think the natural condition of mankind compares to the condition of mankind in a society governed by laws?
2. Discuss the meaning of the following passage about human nature in a natural state with your group. Then decide whether or not you agree with it:

   “From this equality of ability, ariseth equality of hope in the attaining of our Ends. And therefore if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies; and in the way to their End…endeavour to destroy, or subdue one another.”

3. In “From Diffidence Warre,” Hobbes suggests that humans in our natural condition, without government or society, would be in a constant state of war. What logic does he provide to support this assertion?
4. What are the three “principal causes of quarrel” he describes?
5. Based on his sentiment in the following statement, what does Hobbes believe humans need to maintain a peace between them?

   “Hereby it is manifest, that during the time men live without a common Power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called Warre.”

6. What does Hobbes mean in the following statement and what logic does he provide to support this assertion?

   “Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of Warre, where every man is Enemy to every man; the same is consequent to the time, wherein men live without other security, than what their own strength, and their own invention shall furnish them withall. In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.”

7. Explain what Hobbes means when he writes the following, and decide whether or not you agree with him.

   “To this warre of every man against every man…nothing can be Unjust. The notions of Right and Wrong, Justice and Injustice have there no place. Where there is no common Power, there is no Law: where no Law, no Injustice. Force, and Fraud are in warre the two Cardinall vertues.”

    
8. What are the passions that incline men to peace, according to Hobbes?
9. Based on what you have read, what are Hobbes’ main considerations for a social contract? What do you think Hobbes would prioritize in a social contract: safety or freedom?

(Optional) Group Project: Thomas Hobbes’ book is called Leviathan, which is a mythological representation of the kind of power that he believes should govern a society. Do some research with your group to find out what the name “Leviathan” references. Then look up Hobbes’ idea of “the sovereign.” Why does he believe the sovereign is the right form of government for a commonwealth? In what way does Leviathan connect to the idea of the sovereign?

Part Two

Arrange the desks in a circle and lead a Socratic discussion with the following prompts and questions.

1. John Locke describes humankind in a state of nature, or without the laws of a commonwealth or civilization to govern us, thus:

   “The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions…Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station wilfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.”

How does this view of humanity in a state of nature differ from Hobbes’ view of humanity in a state of nature? Which version do you agree with more? Explain your answer.

1. On the subject of justice in the state of nature, Locke writes,

   “And that all men may be restrained from invading others rights, and from doing hurt to one another, and the law of nature be observed, which willeth the peace and preservation of all mankind, the execution of the law of nature is, in that state, put into every man’s hands, whereby every one has a right to punish the transgressors of that law to such a degree, as may hinder its violation: for the law of nature would, as all other laws that concern men in this world be in vain, if there were no body that in the state of nature had a power to execute that law, and thereby preserve the innocent and restrain offenders.”

    

How does Locke’s view of justice in a state of nature compare with Hobbes’ view? Do you think justice comes from human nature or from the laws that govern us? Do you think it is in our universal human nature to “invade others’ rights” in service to our self-interest, or do you think those who “invade others’ rights” are rare exceptions to the law of nature that Locke describes?

1. After reading these two philosophers, what is your opinion about the relationship between safety and liberty in a society? If people feel unsafe, can they truly be free? On the other hand, does the enforcement of rules designed to protect public safety infringe on personal liberty? What is the right balance? Cite Hobbes and/or Locke in the evidence you provide to support your answers.
2. In modern society, the debate about safety and freedom also includes the regulation of speech, art, political rhetoric, and other intangible things accused of exposing people to dangerous ideas. Do you believe that laws enforcing public safety should also keep people safe from “dangerous” ideas? Why or why not? In your answer, try to define what a dangerous idea is and think about how it can be understood in concrete terms in law.
3. In the additional research you did into Hobbes’ idea of “the sovereign,” you discovered that Hobbes believes it is best to give enormous power to government so that it can fulfill what he deems its most important responsibility: maintaining public order and safety. What benefits are there to a government that is so big and powerful? What consequences can arise from such a government?
4. Aristotle believed that our use of Reason is the key to living the happiest life of the mind and the soul. Locke believed humankind is governed by a sense of Reason inherent in the natural law that dictates our nature, even without laws of a commonwealth to regulate our behavior. Both of them saw Reason as a means of unlocking the higher concepts of goodness, justice and truth that humans strive for. Hobbes saw Reason differently. He believed the sole function of Reason in a state of nature is to guide people toward acting out of self-interest and survival. What do you think? Are Aristotle’s concept of eudaimonia and Locke’s concept of Reason luxuries enjoyed by those who live more safely within a law-abiding society? Or are Reason, justice, goodness and truth central to who we are and how we find meaning, no matter where we are?
5. In sections 8-12, Locke explains his rationale behind the following statement:

   “EVERY MAN HATH A RIGHT TO PUNISH THE OFFENDER, AND BE EXECUTIONER OF THE LAW OF NATURE.”

What is his rationale and do you agree that it is just for each individual to have that kind of power?

1. In Section 13, Locke entertains an opposing viewpoint to his claim. He writes,

   “I doubt not but it will be objected, that it is unreasonable for men to be judges in their own cases, that self-love will make men partial to themselves and their friends: and on the other side, that ill nature, passion and revenge will carry them too far in punishing others; and hence nothing but confusion and disorder will follow, and that therefore God hath certainly appointed government to restrain the partiality and violence of men.”

How does he rebut this viewpoint in the second part of Section 13? What do you think? Is it possible, in a state of nature or in a commonwealth, to avoid bias or passions that take things too far in the administration of justice?

At the end of Section 13, Locke concludes,

“much better it is in the state of nature, wherein men are not bound to submit to the unjust will of another: and if he that judges, judges amiss in his own, or any other case, he is answerable for it to the rest of mankind.”

Do you agree? Why or why not?

Part Three

Choose one or more of these debate questions to pose to students. Ask each student to decide on their answer to the question(s) and to map out a few logical supporting premises. Next, ask them to consider what an opposing view to theirs would be and how they would rebut it. Finally, let students either pair up with an opponent to debate in person or combine students into teams to perform one class-wide debate.

1. Hobbes advocated for surrendering some freedom to the power of a sovereign for the sake of a well-ordered society. Rousseau advocated for surrendering some freedom to the power of the General Will for the most just and equitable society. Which option do you prefer and why?
2. It is generally accepted that a large and powerful government has the potential to become tyrannical. Is there a danger of tyranny in the society Rousseau describes, which is ruled by the will of the people? Explain your answer.
3. Can people remain truly free after agreeing to live under a government? Explain your answer.
4. What does Rousseau mean when he says those who believe their individual will is in conflict with the General Will must be “forced to be free?” Does such a principle lend itself to a free and just society? Explain your answer.
5. Is it more important for a government to protect its citizens from danger, or to preserve the individual freedoms that make self-government possible?
6. Is state surveillance a useful tool for maintaining safety or an infringement on individual freedom? Explain your answer.

Part Four — Writing Prompts

Draw Connections Through History

Read The Declaration of Independence and respond to one of the following questions:

1. Compare and contrast Jefferson’s view of government power to Hobbes’ view of government power.
2. Identify the influence of Hobbes, Locke and/or Rousseau on Thomas Jefferson and the other authors of The Declaration of Independence.
3. Compare and contrast the importance of the will of the people in Hobbes’ thinking, Rousseau’s thinking, and Jefferson’s thinking.
4. Compare and contrast Locke’s view of human nature and justice with Jefferson’s view.

Draw Connections to Today

In an opinion essay, evaluate whether our modern democratic republic ultimately leans more toward Hobbes' emphasis on security, Locke's emphasis on liberty and justice, or Rousseau's emphasis on the General Will.

People look to government for protection from violence, injustice, and disorder. Yet every society must also decide how much individual freedom its citizens are willing to surrender in exchange for that protection. This tension between security and liberty lies at the heart of modern political philosophy and remains one of the defining questions of democratic life. How much power should governments possess? When does authority become tyranny? What value does liberty have without safety?

This lesson examines these questions through the writings of two of the most influential political philosophers of the modern era: Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Although both thinkers believed that governments arise through a social contract, an agreement among individuals to form a political community, they reached dramatically different conclusions about the relationship between freedom and political authority.

Writing during the turmoil of the English Civil War, Thomas Hobbes believed that life without government would descend into fear, violence, and perpetual conflict. In Leviathan, he describes the "state of nature" as a condition in which every person must constantly struggle for survival. Because no common authority exists to enforce laws or settle disputes, life becomes insecure and unpredictable. Hobbes argues that rational people would willingly surrender many of their freedoms to a powerful government, because peace and security are impossible without a strong authority capable of maintaining order. For Hobbes, safety is the foundation upon which all other human pursuits depend.

Nearly a century later, Jean-Jacques Rousseau challenged this conclusion. In The Social Contract, Rousseau argues that people are born free and that legitimate governments derive their authority from the consent of the governed, not from force. Rather than viewing liberty and political order as opposing goals, Rousseau believes that citizens can remain free while participating in a government that reflects the collective will of the people. True political authority, he argues, does not require individuals to surrender their freedom but instead enables them to protect it through laws they help create. But there are dangers to Rousseau’s political vision, as well. Students will think about what happens to individuals who disagree with Rousseau’s conception of the “General Will.”

Together, Hobbes and Rousseau present two enduring visions of political life. Hobbes warns that excessive freedom can lead to chaos and insecurity. Rousseau warns that excessive authority can destroy the very freedom government is meant to protect. Their disagreement continues to shape debates over civil liberties, national security, public health, criminal justice, surveillance, and the limits of governmental power.

Between Hobbes and Rousseau stands the English philosopher John Locke, whose ideas helped shape many modern democratic governments. While Locke agreed with Hobbes that governments arise through a social contract, he rejected the belief that citizens must surrender broad authority to a powerful ruler. Instead, Locke argued that all people possess natural rights, including life, liberty, and property, that exist before government itself. The primary purpose of government, he believed, is to protect these rights, and when it fails to do so, citizens have the right to alter or even replace it. Locke's philosophy became a cornerstone of liberal democracy and profoundly influenced the authors of the United States Declaration of Independence, who adopted his conviction that legitimate governments derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed."

As you read these texts, and The Declaration of Independence at the end of the unit, consider how their ideas continue to influence contemporary society. In times of crisis, should governments receive greater authority to protect the public? Should individual freedoms ever be limited for the common good? And where should a free society draw the line between security and liberty?

Are we stewards of the earth or are we destroyers of it? What ethical obligations, if any, do we have to animals? To trees? To water? Should our sense of justice extend beyond humanity and to all living things? Are we entitled to use the resources of the earth to fulfill our vision of progress? These are timeless questions that have yielded very different answers from different cultures. In this unit, students will read philosophical and mythic texts to help them discover that civilizations have long debated whether humans are rulers of nature, partners with nature, or simply one species among many.

Read The Popol Vuh, by Lewis Spence, Book I and Book 3

Read Jataka Tales, “The Banyan Deer.”

Read The Epic of Gilgamesh, “In the Cedar Forest.”

Finally, consider the following two passages:

1. “If Heaven and Earth are unable to persist, how could man? Man is ruled by Earth. Earth is ruled by Heaven. Heaven is ruled by the Way. The Way is ruled by itself.

   All things carry yin and embrace yang. They reach harmony by blending with the vital breath”

1. “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth”

   (Genesis).

Part One

Assign students to work in groups to discuss the following questions.

1. In The Popol Vuh, books 1 and 3, humankind is created, first from wood and then from maize. What does this creation tale say about the connection between humans and the elements, animals and plants of the earth?
2. How does your group interpret the word “dominion” in the Genesis passage? Does it mean “domination,” or does it mean something closer to “stewardship?” Or something else entirely?
3. Compare The Popol Vuh creation myth to the stated purpose of humankind in the passage from Genesis. What similarities and differences are there in the relationships forged between humans and the earth in the different creation stories?
4. In “The Banyan Deer,” human kings learn a moral lesson from a deer king. What do they learn and what does the story reveal about the way the author views humans in relation to nature?
5. “The Cedar Forest” chapter of The Epic of Gilgamesh depicts a conflict between civilization and nature. What is Gilgamesh’s perspective on his responsibility to his kingdom and his responsibility to nature? Are these two responsibilities in conflict with one another? Why?
6. How would you describe Lao Tzu’s philosophy about the human relationship to nature? How does it compare to Gilgamesh’s philosophy?
7. Discuss with your group whether or not any of these views of the relationship between humankind and the natural world really resonate with you and why.

(Optional) Group Project:

Look up the story of Phaethon and his deadly chariot ride in Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Book II. What does this story reveal about the way the ancient Romans saw the relationship between humans, the elements and the natural world? What responsibility did they believe humans had to the elements, the gods and the natural world? What human hungers in that story jeopardized the balance in the world? Do you find any modern parallels to that story today?

Part Two

Arrange the desks in a circle and lead a Socratic discussion with the following prompts and questions.

1. In The Epic of Gilgamesh, Gilgamesh finds honor in bringing wood back to his kingdom as a resource for building and creation. Do you think he was wrong to cut down the forest, even if the wood he brought home enriched the lives of people in his kingdom? Explain your answer.
2. The range of creation philosophy that you have read comes from many different parts of the world. Do you think that the natural world we experience in our daily lives influences the way we understand our place in nature and the cosmos? Explain your answer.
3. Do you believe humankind has greater rights to use nature, animals and the elements, because we have a higher level of consciousness? Explain your answer.
4. Is it possible to think about or examine the human role in relation to the natural world without being biased by an anthropocentric lens, which centers the human experience? Do you believe there are sometimes conflicts between what is in the best human interest and what is in the interest of the natural world or other animals? If so, then is it reasonable to prioritize a nonhuman perspective in these conflicts? Explain your answer.
5. In your group work, you discussed the meaning of the idea that mankind has “dominion” over the other living creatures of the earth. Do you believe we do or do not have dominion over other living creatures? If you believe we do have dominion, then does that power come with any moral obligations?
6. Do you think our sense of justice should extend to all living things? If so, then are modern inventions, like highways, that serve our need for efficiency, convenience and progress unjust if they harm animals or the natural world?
7. Do you think human life can be separated from nature? Do you think we have a different relationship to nature today than people one hundred years ago or one thousand years ago did? Is that different relationship perception or reality? Explain your answer.

Part Three

Choose one or more of these debate questions to pose to students. Ask each student to decide on their answer to the question(s) and to map out a few logical supporting premises. Next, ask them to consider what an opposing view to theirs would be and how they would rebut it. Finally, let students either pair up with an opponent to debate in person or combine students into teams to perform one class-wide debate.

1. Is it inevitable that human progress will hurt the environment? Explain why or why not.
2. Plutarch suggests that we eat meat because it is customary to do so, not because our bodies really need it for sustenance. Do you agree with this? Is there modern science to support or refute this claim?
3. Should animals have the same rights that humans have? Explain your answer.

Part Four — Writing Prompts

1. Analysis. Read “Season of Phantasmal Peace,” by Derek Walcott, and analyze the connection Walcott finds between the narrative perspective of the poem, the imagery of the natural world, and a higher order of things.
2. Argument. Do you think nature helps us connect with a higher power? Respond with your own opinion or cite one or more texts from this unit to support your answer.

From the earliest creation stories to contemporary debates about animal rights and environmental ethics, human beings have wrestled with one enduring question: What responsibilities do we have toward the natural world and the creatures with whom we share it? Different civilizations have answered this question in remarkably different ways. Some traditions portray humanity as caretakers of creation, others as participants in a larger natural order, while still others challenge the very idea that humans stand above other living beings.

This unit follows that conversation across cultures and centuries. In the Popol Vuh, human beings are created from maize, emphasizing humanity’s dependence upon the earth itself. The Jataka Tales present animals as wise, compassionate, and morally significant, often serving as teachers rather than servants of humanity. In The Epic of Gilgamesh, the destruction of the Cedar Forest raises timeless questions about ambition, progress, and the cost of exploiting the natural world. A brief passage from Genesis introduces the influential idea of humanity’s “dominion” over creation, while selections from the Tao Te Ching encourage readers to seek harmony with nature rather than mastery over it. Ovid’s Metamorphoses reminds us that humans, animals, and the natural world are deeply interconnected through continual transformation, while the myth of the charioteer illustrates humanity’s ongoing struggle to govern desire through wisdom and self-control, a timeless metaphor for the instincts in humanity that place us in conflict with the natural world.

The final readings touch on the ethical decisions we are obliged to make in our daily lives, whether or not we are physically close to nature. In On the Eating of Flesh, Plutarch asks whether compassion should extend beyond our own species, challenging readers to consider the moral implications of eating animals. Peter Singer’s introduction to Animal Liberation Now argues that the capacity to suffer, not species membership, should shape our ethical responsibilities toward other living beings.

Together, these texts encourage us to reconsider humanity’s place within the living world. Are we rulers of nature, its caretakers, or simply one species among many? What responsibilities accompany our unique abilities? And how should our answers shape the way we live with the earth and the countless forms of life that inhabit it?

How can we define beauty? Is it a physical quality or the result of a deeper quality radiating outwards? Why do we admire beautiful things? What connection, if any, does beauty have with virtue, goodness, the soul, morality, or metaphysics? Must art be beautiful in order to be good? This unit will connect views on beauty from ancient Rome, China and Greece, and it will culminate in a modern perspective on the subject from Oscar Wilde. As they read the different takes on beauty and the sublime, students will connect these views to their own world, in which beauty and the sublime are both ubiquitous and hard to find.

Part One — Group Work

Assign students to work in groups to discuss the following questions.

1. In section 1, Longinus introduces the sublime as the central subject of his essay. What is the sublime? What does it have to do with beauty? What effect does Longinus say the sublime has on a reader?
2. In sections 3 and 4, Longinus points out some stylistic flaws that make writing more ridiculous than sublime. What are these flaws and what does Longinus say about them?
3. In section 5, Longinus points out the root cause of both sublime writing and writing that fails to be sublime. What is it?
4. In section 7, Longinus distinguishes between writing that is and is not sublime. Discuss his criteria for identifying the sublime in a piece of literature. Do you agree with them?
5. In section 8, Longinus details what he means by “grandeur of thought” or a “lofty cast of mind.” He writes:

   “true eloquence can be found only in those whose spirit is generous and aspiring,”

   which means he does not believe everyone is capable of producing the sublime and beautiful in their art or writing. Discuss this notion with your group. Does it take a particular kind of mind and spirit to produce beauty that is capable of moving people and standing the test of time?

1. In sections 10, 11 and 12, what does Longinus say about the importance of the artist’s craft in producing the most beautiful and sublime effects?
2. In section 13, Longinus writes:

   “We may learn from this author, if we would but observe his example, that there is yet another path besides those mentioned which leads to sublime heights. What path do I mean? The emulous imitation of the great poets and prose-writers of the past.”

     Discuss the truth of this statement with your group. Do you agree with it? Why or why not?

1. (Option 1): 1. Read Socrates’ speech in Plato’s Symposium. In this speech, he relays what Diotima taught him about love and beauty. Compare what Socrates says about beauty connecting to both goodness and immortality to Longinus’ analysis of beauty and sublimity in art. What greater meaning do both philosophers attribute to the physical quality of beauty in form and in art?

1. 2. In the Sympoisum, Socrates suggests that humans achieve immortality by giving birth to beautiful things: human beings, creation, works of art, or noble deeds. He then describes his “ladder of love” theory taught to him by the priestess, Diotima. Discuss with your group what Socrates’ ladder of love has to do with beauty, and what beauty has to do with love.
2. (Option 2) In Lao Tzu’s Tao Te Ching, or Book of the Way and Its Virtues, written around 600 B.C.E. in China, the author sees beauty in a very different way. He writes:

   “ The Tao that can be trodden is not the enduring and unchanging Tao. The name that can be named is not the enduring and unchanging name.(Conceived of as) having no name, it is the Originator of heaven and earth; (conceived of as) having a name, it is the Mother of all things. Always without desire we must be found, If its deep mystery we would sound; But if desire always within us be, Its outer fringe is all that we shall see.Under these two aspects, it is really the same; but as development takes place, it receives the different names. Together we call them the Mystery. Where the Mystery is the deepest is the gate of all that is subtle and wonderful. All in the world know the beauty of the beautiful, and in doing this they have (the idea of) what ugliness is; they all know the skill of the skilful, and in doing this they have (the idea of) what the want of skill is. So it is that existence and non-existence give birth the one to (the idea of) the other; that difficulty and ease produce the one (the idea of) the other; that length and shortness fashion out the one the figure of the other; that (the ideas of) height and lowness arise from the contrast of the one with the other; that the musical notes and tones become harmonious through the relation of one with another; and that being before and behind give the idea of one following another.”

   Compare the way Lao Tzu sees the sublime and the way Longinus sees it. What value does beauty have in Lao Tzu’s view? Does it have deeper meaning to him? What effects do contrast and harmony have in his valuation of beauty?

Part Two — Socratic Seminar

Arrange the desks in a circle and lead a Socratic discussion with the following prompts and questions.

1. How do you define beauty? Think about the different perspectives on beauty that you have read thus far and explain whether or not those perspectives have any influence on your definition of beauty.
2. Beauty can be found in art, in human form, in material possessions, in architecture, on social media, in nature, in ideas, etc. Do you think there are higher and lower forms of beauty? Do some kinds of beauty have greater meaning than others? Do some kinds of beauty appeal to more shallow sensibilities? Or is all beauty valuable simply by virtue of being beautiful? Explain your answer with logic and at least one example.
3. Have you ever experienced the kind of awe that Longinus believes great art naturally inspires in people? What made you feel that way and why?
4. Do you believe that beauty has a moral purpose? Does it connect us to truth or virtue? Explain your answer.
5. Is it possible to know, experience or appreciate beauty, goodness or sublimity if we have not experienced the opposite? Explain your answer and draw a connection to the passage from Lao Tzu.
6. Longinus believed that all who read or experience beauty will perceive its sublimity in the same way, because the sublime is a definable concept. Shakespeare subverted the notion of idealized beauty and suggested instead that beauty and its higher meaning are subjective, understood differently by each person. Can both of these ideas be true at once? Can beauty be both universal and subjective? Explain your answer.
7. Does the way we experience and respond to beauty say something about who we are?
8. Can beauty be artificial or deceptive? If so, then how can we tell the difference between beauty that produces a sublime experience and beauty that lies? Is there a difference?
9. One reason we read the classics is to encounter timeless beauty in form, language and ideas. What makes philosophy, literature and art timeless? Conversely, what confines literature, art or philosophy to a mortal lifespan? How does the quality of timelessness in art, literature and philosophy connect to an idea of beauty or the sublime?
10. Do you think life is better when it is lived with an appreciation for beauty? On the other hand, do you think an appreciation for beauty can negatively impact one’s life? Explain your answer.
11. “Beauty” is a lucrative business category that includes cosmetics, social media influencers, plastic surgeons, fashion, skin care, etc. Do you think the financial success and popularity of the beauty industry indicates that we live in a culture that finds deep meaning, goodness and philosophical enlightenment in beauty? Explain your answer.

Part Three — Debate

Choose one or more of these debate questions to pose to students. Ask each student to decide on their answer to the question(s) and to map out a few logical supporting premises. Next, ask them to consider what an opposing view to theirs would be and how they would rebut it. Finally, let students either pair up with an opponent to debate in person or combine students into teams to perform one class-wide debate.

1. You have read perspectives extolling beauty as a means of reaching something greater than the material world can give us, like sublimity, goodness or truth. You have read Wilde’s perspective, which is insistent that a masterful work of art does not and should not have any higher meaning than its own beauty. Do you agree with Oscar Wilde? Why or why not?
2. Oscar Wilde writes:

   “There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well-written, or badly written. That is all.”

   Do you think books and art can be beautiful without being moral or having any deeper meaning? Explain your answer.
3. In order for a beautiful work of art or idea to be considered sublime, must it first adhere to conventional standards of what is beautiful? Explain your answer.
4. Can beauty exist without goodness? Explain your answer.

Part Four. Writing Prompt. 1. In Augustine’s Confessions, he writes the following about beauty:

"Late have I loved you, O Beauty ever ancient, ever new, late have I loved you! You were within me, but I was outside, and it was there that I searched for you. In my unloveliness I plunged into the lovely things which you created. You were with me, but I was not with you.”

This passage can be interpreted in several different ways. It is most commonly understood as Augustine’s search for the presence of a higher power, and it also draws attention to the limitation of the eye, the mind and the heart to see and appreciate something beautiful when we do not yet know beauty and goodness in ourselves. In an informal response paper, analyze Augustine’s quote and connect it to the broader conversation about beauty in the ancient world and in the modern one.
1. Read “The Lady’s Dressing Room,” by Jonathan Swift. In what way does Swift’s satire challenge lofty beliefs about beauty? In what way does his satire affirm them?

Beauty has inspired some of humanity's greatest works of art, literature, music, and architecture. It has launched wars, inspired scientific discovery, shaped religious devotion, and transformed the way people understand themselves and the world around them. Yet despite its influence, beauty remains one of philosophy's most difficult questions. Is beauty simply a matter of personal taste, or does it exist independently of our opinions? Is it found only in works of art and nature, or can it also be discovered in virtue, truth, and the human soul? Does beauty have a moral purpose, or is it valuable simply because it exists?

This lesson explores these questions through influential voices spanning more than two thousand years of human thought. Together, they reveal that beauty is a window into some of philosophy's deepest questions about reality, goodness, and what it means to be human.

The ancient Roman/Syrian/Greek critic Longinus asks why certain literature, speeches, and works of art leave us awestruck. Great beauty, he argues, first pleases the senses, and then it elevates the human spirit, overwhelms ordinary experience, and inspires feelings of wonder. His distinction between the beautiful and the sublime would influence artists, writers, and philosophers for centuries.

A different view is examined in Plato's Symposium, where beauty is presented in human form as well as in art. Through the famous speech of Socrates on Diotima, Plato argues that love of beautiful things can lead us toward increasingly higher forms of understanding, from admiration of individual beauty to appreciation of beautiful souls, just laws, knowledge, and ultimately Beauty itself, an eternal and unchanging reality. For Plato, beauty is a path to wisdom.

Across the world in ancient China, Lao Tzu offers another understanding of beauty in the Tao Te Ching. Rather than treating beauty as an ideal to be pursued, Lao Tzu suggests that beauty and ugliness, strength and weakness, success and failure all exist in relationship to one another. Perfection and ideal forms don’t matter nearly as much as harmony, which aligns with virtues of balance, humility, and living in accordance with the Tao, or "the Way." His philosophy invites readers to see beauty as something revealed through the natural order of the world, rather than something to possess.

Shakespeare offers a more personal and human perspective in Sonnet 130. Rejecting the exaggerated praise common in Renaissance love poetry, Shakespeare insists that genuine love does not depend upon impossible standards of physical perfection. By celebrating the beauty of an ordinary woman rather than an idealized fantasy, he suggests that authenticity may be more beautiful than perfection itself. Later, students will have a chance to examine views on love from another famous sonnet writer, Petrarch.

Oscar Wilde challenges nearly every assumption developed by the earlier writers. In the famous preface to The Picture of Dorian Gray Wilde argues that art does not exist to teach morality or improve society. Instead, he defends the idea that beauty possesses value in its own right. His philosophy of "art for art's sake" raises a provocative question that remains central to modern aesthetics: Must beauty serve truth or goodness, or is beauty itself enough? Finally, another humorous writer, Jonathan Swift, weighs in on the subject with “The Lady’s Dressing Room,” a satire that both critiques and affirms lofty views of beauty, while poking fun at the absurdity of idealizing beauty.

Taken together, these readings reveal that beauty has never meant just one thing. For Plato, beauty leads us toward truth. For Longinus, it elevates the soul through awe. For Lao Tzu, it emerges through harmony and balance. For Shakespeare, it is found in honest human affection. For Wilde, beauty stands independent of moral purpose. By comparing these perspectives, students will discover that debates about beauty are ultimately debates about human nature and about what we value, what we pursue, and what has the power to elevate and transform us.

Do we need love in our lives? How do we know what real love is? Are there any kinds of love that can hurt us? Can love ever be morally wrong? Is love, like beauty or nature, capable of connecting us to truth, goodness or a higher power? Can love inspire us to be better? What happens to us if we never find or experience love? These questions are just as urgent today as they were when Aristotle, Petrarch and Kahlil Gibran wrote about them over the span of two thousand years. The selection of texts in this unit will help students examine many kinds of love, from friendship to eros, and think about the profound impact of one simple word in the ongoing conversation about what it means to be human.

Part One

Assign students to work in groups to discuss the following questions.

1. What does Phaedrus believe love can inspire in people? Cite at least one specific example from his speech.
2. What are the two kinds of love that Pausanius identifies? In his view, what does love have to do with desire?
3. Eryximachus sees love as more of a cosmic force in all things. What relationship does he see between love and harmony, balance and order in the universe?
4. What story does Aristophanes tell about humans searching for their other halves? What does this story reveal about his view of “soul mates?”
5. Agathon makes a connection between love and beauty. Find one quote that illustrates this connection in his speech.
6. Explain the “ladder of love” that Socrates learned about from Diotima.
7. Explain how true or noble love, in Socrates’ estimation, leads to philosophical enlightenment.

(Optional) Group Projects

1. Read the National Women’s History Museum’s curated works on “The History of Romance.” Discuss with your group the disparity between the romantic side of love and the institutional and economic considerations of marriage. Why do you think the rate of romantic partnerships and marriage is decreasing? Does a decreasing number of romantic partnerships suggest that there is a decreasing amount of love in the world?
2. Read Shakespeare’s “Sonnet 2” and draw a parallel between it and Socrates’ notion of love bringing beauty into the world.

Part Two

Arrange the desks in a circle and lead a Socratic discussion with the following prompts and questions.

1. Kahlil Gibran speaks of the duality of love. He writes,

   “Even as he crowns you so shall he crucify you. Even as he is for your growth so he is for your pruning.”

   Why does Gibran suggest that love "crowns" and "crucifies" us? Is this something to be desired? Why or why not?
2. Gibran writes,

   “All these things shall love do unto you that you may know the secrets of your heart, and in that knowledge become a fragment of Life’s heart.”

   How do you interpret this? Does this relate to any part of the dialogue in the Symposium regarding the higher philosophical enlightenment that comes from love?
3. Do you believe, as Phaedrus does, that love inspires you to be a better person? Do you think that inspiration to be better is the proof of true love? Is it possible to find true love that inspires you to do bad things?
4. Do you believe that love exists independent of our imaginations? Explain your answer and draw in a quote from one of the texts you have read.
5. Aristotle writes the following about friendship:

   “Friendship seems to be the bond of Social Communities, and legislators seem to be more anxious to secure it than Justice even…where people are in friendship, justice is not required.”

   Is friendship a kind of love? Or is friendship something different from love? Would it be a true statement to say, “Where people are in love, justice is not required?” Is the statement true about friendship?
6. How does it make you feel to hear the words, “I love you?” Are those words meaningful, even if there is no genuine love behind them? How can we really know the difference between someone feeling love for us and simply saying the words that signify feeling love? How can we really know the feeling of love in ourselves?

Part Three

Choose one or more of these debate questions to pose to students. Ask each student to decide on their answer to the question(s) and to map out a few logical supporting premises. Next, ask them to consider what an opposing view to theirs would be and how they would rebut it. Finally, let students either pair up with an opponent to debate in person or combine students into teams to perform one class-wide debate.

1. Can we live well and be happy without love in our lives? Explain your answer.
2. Do you believe those who are unwilling to sacrifice and suffer for love are still capable of experiencing it? Explain your answer. Consider whether or not there is a limit to the suffering and sacrifice love should ask of us.
3. Does love naturally exist in the world, even without human thought or action? Explain your answer.
4. Does love have anything to do with morality? Explain your answer.

Part Four — Writing Prompts

1. Analysis. Is there a song, movie, book, painting or other artistic medium that has deeply influenced the way you understand love? Write about it and the meaning you find in it in an analytical essay.

Read the following sonnets from Petrarch, an Italian fourteenth-century poet who is renowned for his writing about love.”

gutenberg.org/files/50307/50307-h/50307-h.htm

Choose one poem to analyze in a close reading or choose two poems to compare and contrast.

1. Argument. Is love an essential part of a life well-lived? After reading and discussing this question, what is your opinion?

Love has inspired some of humanity's greatest works of philosophy, literature, art, and religion. It has been celebrated as a source of joy, sacrifice, friendship, beauty, and meaning. Yet philosophers have long disagreed about what love truly is. Is it simply an emotion, or is it a virtue? Does love make us happier, wiser, or more complete? And can a meaningful life exist without it?

This lesson explores three influential perspectives on the nature of love. In Plato's Symposium, love is presented as a force that draws human beings beyond physical attraction toward beauty, wisdom, and ultimately truth itself. More than two thousand years later, Kahlil Gibran's poetic essay "On Love" describes love as a powerful and transformative force that demands both vulnerability and growth, suggesting that love shapes us as much as we choose it. Finally, students will examine the connection between love and friendship in Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, which argues that deep friendship is one of the highest forms of human flourishing because it is grounded in mutual virtue, trust, and shared pursuit of the good life.

Together, these readings invite us to consider whether love is more than a private feeling. Is it essential to becoming fully human? Does love help us discover truth, build lasting friendships, or cultivate the virtues necessary for a flourishing life? By comparing these different visions of love, students will explore one of humanity's oldest and most universal questions.

Do we truly choose our actions or are our lives determined for us by forces beyond our control? Is our freedom of thought, expression or choice impeded by the power of language or technology? Does fate or destiny exist? If so, then can it coexist with free will? Is the will of the individual more powerful than the social, political and cultural circumstances in which it finds itself? In this unit, students will examine, converse with and debate a range of philosophers from the ancient world, the medieval one and the modern one who are united by their attempt to grapple with who and what determines the course of a human life.

Part One

Assign students to work in groups to discuss the following questions.

1. In “The Myth of Er,” which force is more powerful: free will or fate? Explain your answer.
2. Plato concludes the “Myth of Er” by writing the following:

   “hold fast ever to the heavenly way and follow after justice and virtue always, considering that the soul is immortal and able to endure every sort of good and every sort of evil. Thus shall we live dear to one another and to the gods, both while remaining here and when, like conquerors in the games who go round to gather gifts, we receive our reward.”

Is Plato saying that we choose, of our own free will, to live according to what he terms “the heavenly way?” Or is he suggesting that we must live that way in pursuit of a reward? Depending on your answer, do you see any conflict between the will of the individual and the moral imperatives placed upon the individual by higher or stronger forces? Are our moral choices acts of freedom?

1. In what way does the poem of Boethius’ “Song 1” evoke the idea of destiny or fate?
2. Boethius explores free will from inside a tradition of monotheistic thought. The conflict between determinism, or the idea that fate is determined or at least foreseen by a higher power vs. free will is one that comes up in many different religious traditions. What specific question does Boethius ask about free will?
3. Lady Philosophy answers him by saying that we are free. How does she support this assertion?
4. Interpret the meaning of the following passage from Lady Philosophy:

   “The higher Divine essences possess a clear-sighted judgment, an uncorrupt will, and an effective power of accomplishing their wishes. Human souls must needs be comparatively free while they abide in the contemplation of the Divine mind, less free when they pass into bodily form, and still less, again, when they are enwrapped in earthly members.”

5. What does Lady Philosophy mean when she says people who lose possession of their proper reason and “let their gaze fall from the light of the highest truth” are “led captive by their own liberty?”
6. Do you notice any similarities between Boethius and Plato?
7. Lady Philosophy ends her speech by saying:

   “Yet He who seeth all things from eternity beholdeth these things with the eyes of His providence, and assigneth to each what is predestined for it by its merits.”

   Do you find a conflict between this idea and free will?

(Optional) Group Project: You have read two perspectives on fate vs. free will that focus on metaphysical understandings of preordained destiny. But are there any material powers on earth that conflict with our freedom to choose for ourselves? With your group, think about how language, technology, social pressure and other forces act upon our free will.

Do a little bit of research into the idea of “linguistic determinism,” or “linguistic relativity.” Do you find a compelling argument for the theory that language influences what we can think? Why or why not?

(Optional) Read Martin Heidegger’s “The Question Concerning Technology” and/or “Martin Heidegger on Technology” by Matthew Sanderson.

Read James Baldwin’s “My Dungeon Shook,” a letter written to his nephew at the dawn of the Civil Rights movement.

Part Two

Arrange the desks in a circle and lead a Socratic discussion with the following prompts and questions.

1. In Plato’s “Myth of Er,” spirits have the freedom to choose their destinies, but they then have to live with the consequences of those choices and what those choices obligate them to do in their next lives. To what extent do you think our own decisions and choices compromise our free will?
2. Determinism is the belief that all events in the universe happen along a predictable, unbroken chain of events that could only happen one way. Do you think this is true? If so, then do you also believe we have free will? Explain your answer.
3. Connect Heidegger’s concept of “enframing” with what you and your group read about “linguistic determinism.” In what way do both technology and language act upon our freedom to see, understand, interpret and value reality, and how, if at all, do they influence our freedom to make independent-minded choices?
4. Nietzsche writes:

   “how we have been able to give our senses a passport to everything superficial, our thoughts a godlike desire for wanton pranks and wrong inferences!—how from the beginning, we have contrived to retain our ignorance in order to enjoy an almost inconceivable freedom, thoughtlessness, imprudence, heartiness, and gaiety—in order to enjoy life! And only on this solidified, granite-like foundation of ignorance could knowledge rear itself hitherto, the will to knowledge on the foundation of a far more powerful will, the will to ignorance, to the uncertain, to the untrue!”

In other words, our references for understanding truth, morality, goodness, order, and happiness are simply the architects of the philosophical system within which we live. Truth, as we know it, only connects to an origin point in the minds of these architects, not to any absolute truth. If our values and assumptions are products of this system, then in a way, our thoughts, beliefs and choices are preordained by it. We even have to question if what we think we know about ourselves is really a product of a predetermined, and artificial, system of thought.

Can this really be true? Can we be so fooled by our own systems of thought that we believe we are free and thinking our own thoughts when we aren’t? Explain your answer and discuss whether or not you find Nietzsche’s writing persuasive.

1. James Baldwin writes about free will vs. fate in a different way. What forces does he see as a hinderance to his nephew’s free will? Do you believe society, institutions or government can become forces of fate that predetermine a person’s destiny? Explain your answer.
2. James Baldwin also encourages his nephew to embrace his own power to determine his life, his identity and his destiny for himself. Is an individual’s free will strong enough to overcome all the forces (from metaphysical ones to social, technological and linguistic ones) that attempt to hinder it? If so, then what does a person need to do to genuinely ensure that they are acting and deciding in accordance with their own free will?
3. Think back to your reading and discussion on the subject of being an individual and a nonconformist. Do you think the test of our free will is our ability to be a nonconformist? Can we reasonably use our free will to conform? Does conformity prove a lack of free will? Do you think there should be any rules about the relationship between one’s free will and the choices one makes with it?

Part Three

Choose one or more of these debate questions to pose to students. Ask each student to decide on their answer to the question(s) and to map out a few logical supporting premises. Next, ask them to consider what an opposing view to theirs would be and how they would rebut it. Finally, let students either pair up with an opponent to debate in person or combine students into teams to perform one class-wide debate.

1. Can fate and free will coexist? Explain your answer by citing at least one of the texts from this unit.
2. Does A.I. have free will? Why or why not?
3. When you fulfill an obligation out of a sense of duty, love or law, are you acting of your own free will? Why or why not?
4. Sigmund Freud believed our unconscious mind acts upon our dreams, thoughts, feelings and decision-making. Do you believe our free will is controlled by our unconscious mind? Why or why not?

Part Four — Writing Prompts

1. Analysis. Nietzsche theorizes that our lives repeat on an eternal loop. What would you think about differently in terms of finding happiness and meaning in a life that is eternally recurring? In an analytical essay, examine what, if anything, Nietzsche’s philosophy changes in your view of the fate vs. free will debate.
2. Argument. Think back to the story of Phaeton and the chariot from Ovid’s Metamorphoses. In that story, Phaeton made a choice that compelled his father, a god, to oblige him. He had free will, but he didn’t use reason to govern it. Instead, he used desire to govern it. His freely made choice doomed him to a fate that he couldn’t have foreseen, due to his youth, inexperience and ignorance. In an argument essay, answer the following question: Is our will truly free if we do not use reason to guide it?

You can make additional reference to texts from this or other units to support your claim.

1. Analysis. Write an essay examining what you consider the greatest constraint(s) on human freedom. Is it divine fate, language, culture, history, society, technology, the self, or something else entirely?

Context for Unit 10

Human beings have long believed that they possess the freedom to choose their own actions and shape their own destinies. Yet philosophers, writers, and scientists have repeatedly questioned whether our choices are truly our own. Are we free to determine the course of our lives, or are our decisions shaped by forces beyond our control? What power does fate, divine providence, culture, language, technology, or history hold over us? This unit explores one of philosophy's oldest and most enduring questions: Do we have free will?

The conversation begins with Plato's Myth of Er, where souls choose the lives they will live before returning to earth, suggesting that freedom carries profound moral responsibility. Boethius' Consolation of Philosophy introduces another challenge by asking how human freedom can exist if divine providence possesses perfect knowledge of the future. An informal examination of “linguistic determinism” invites students to consider whether the language we speak influences the very way we perceive reality and the choices we are capable of imagining. Martin Heidegger's The Question Concerning Technology argues that technology fundamentally shapes how we understand ourselves and the world by “enframing” meaning, importance and possibilities of the phenomena we encounter. Friedrich Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil challenges readers to question whether their beliefs, values and choices are genuinely their own or simply inherited from culture and tradition, while his thought experiment of the "Eternal Recurrence" asks us to imagine whether we would freely choose to live our lives exactly as they are, again and again, forever.

James Baldwin's “My Dungeon Shook” brings these philosophical questions into the realities of history and society. Writing during the Civil Rights Movement, Baldwin reflects on the ways race, prejudice, and inherited social structures shape individual lives while insisting that people still bear the responsibility to choose who they become. Finally, students will recall Ovid's story of Phaethon, whose tragic attempt to control the sun's chariot raises timeless questions about ambition, self-mastery, and the consequences of choices made without wisdom.

Together, these readings suggest that freedom is far more complicated than simply choosing between alternatives. Our lives are shaped by powerful influences, including fate, language, technology, culture, and history; yet each author also asks whether genuine freedom remains possible despite these constraints. By comparing these perspectives, students will examine whether free will exists and what it truly means to live as a responsible human being.