Choose (at least) two of the authors we read, or two different works
by the same author, and compare what they say or imply about the
original or primary or most important act by which the self or ego relates,
or ought to relate, to itself. (Self-consciousness, self-finding, self-reliance,
self-superintendence, self-overcoming, self-command, self-obedience, etc.)
Some of the issues you might want to consider (but you don’t need to mention
any of these, and certainly shouldn’t try to discuss more than two or three of
them): how the self separates from itself and how it recombines (is reconciled
to itself, mediates between or merges its separated components) in this act;
how the self is both finite and infinite in or as a result of this act (and how it
imposes finitude on itself); the method or stages involved in this act (if any);
how the self is individual and/or universal in this act; how this act involves
the intellect, the passions, and the will; whether this act is dependent on
anything beyond the self and if so what.
2.
Choose (at least) two of the authors we read, or two different works by
the same author, and compare what they say or imply about evil as the way
to good. In what sense, according to them, is good, or at least the highest
or most complete kind of good, achievable, perhaps only achievable, by way
of evil? Note you can’t assume that it is obvious what “good” and “evil”
mean here, or that all our authors means the same thing by them, or that
any one author always means the same. One way of seeing evil is as a kind of
madness (irrationality); another way would be to see it as rebellion; another
way would be to see it as lawbreaking (breaking the tablets of the law); and
there are others. You may also think that some of our authors, although
they come close to saying something like this, then deliberately make sure to
avoid it (this is basically what I argued in lecture about both Schelling and
Coleridge).
3.
Choose (at least) two of the authors we read, or two different works by
the same author, and compare what they say or imply a “dark unknown
force” (e.g. artistic genius, divine grace, the body) that, so to speak, stands
behind and acts within the (conscious) will without belonging to it. Recall
that in Schelling (System of Transcendental Philosophy, p. 222) this force
represents the infinite–unconscious self working within the finite-conscious
self to produce a finite representation of itself, namely, the great work of art
(which represents infinitude insofar as it is perfect, i.e., nothing can be added
to it without diminishing it). You don’t need to discuss Schelling in your
paper, but you could look for versions of that in other authors.
4.
Choose (at least) two of the authors we read, or two different works by
the same author, and compare what they say or imply about the relationship
between men and women: how they are the same, how they are different,
whether they . (As far as I can tell, none of them question the validity or
exhaustiveness of that gender binary, although you might find places where
they could or should have. Nietzsche does mentions eunuchs at one point.)
I don’t recommend writing the obvious paper that says “Fuller is a feminist
and Nietzsche is a sexist,” but there are a lot of more interesting things to
think about here. Why does this come up so often in Nietzsche? Can that
throw light on what Fuller is saying in “The Great Lawsuit”? Also note
that, whatever kind of feminist she is, Fuller does not seem to be the type
who claims that there are no natural or permanent differences between men
and women. Are there things she and Nietzsche actually agree about here?
(What do we imagine Zarathustra said to women when he spoke to them?
It’s mentioned that he did, but we don’t actually get to see it. Did he talk
about men? What did he say? Also: what exactly does Zarathustra mean
when he says that life and wisdom are women?) Or you could write about
other authors besides Nietzsche and Fuller. For example there is Coleridge’s
discussion of male and female characters from Shakespeare in The Friend.
5.
This was one of the choices for the second short essay, but it would work
for the final paper, as well: try to describe the difference in “style” or “sound”
between two of our authors. In what different ways are they “easy” or “hard”
to read? How are their texts structured? (For example: what determines the
order of sentences and paragraphs?) How they use quotation or allusion, and
what kind of texts do they quote or allude to? How do they use metaphors,
of what kind? What do they expect from their readers? What kind of readers
do they expect? Give examples if possible. Try if possible to connect these
differences to philosophical motivations. Why couldn’t author A says what
they want to in author B’s style? (For example: why couldn’t Emerson write
like Schelling? Or like Coleridge? Etc.)
6.
Choose (at least) two of the authors we read, or two different works by the
same author, and compare what they say or imply about the past, memory,
and/or history. What effects does the past have on the present? On the
future? What is or should be the relationship between the past self and the
present or future self? How can or should we deal with regret? With remorse?
With resentment and desire for revenge? With pride in our past? When and
how and in what respects should we try to preserve ourselves and when and
how and in what respects should we seek change or even destruction?
7.
Choose (at least) two of the authors we read, or two different works by the
same author, and compare what they say or imply about the true or natural
ranking of human beings? What characterizes the members of the elite, the
elect, the truly wealthy or happy, and/or the true natural nobility? What
characterizes the rest of us — the people, the masses, the many? (Or are
there more than just two ranks? Or more than one true or natural system of
ranks?) What obligations do the different ranks have to one another, if any?
In what ways do they represent a danger to each other?