So far this quarter the easiest aspect of political theory for me has been Hobbes points on sovereign power. His argument is logistic. Easy to follow, comprehend, and relate to his earlier points on his states of nature. Unlike Locke who at times can be extremely vague and contradictory. His argument for legitimacy based on the consent of a commonwealth is easy to get and doesn’t require too much critical thinking. The most difficult part about political theory for me though has been Rousseau. It’s hard for me even to hone in on an a specific aspect that I find difficult because his theory is so much different than Locke or Hobbes. I’m sure I’ll get a handle on him eventually, but at least for these couple of weeks, it’s been tough for me to understand what he has to say about political legitimacy. Our TA Joel says that French writers tend to be a challenge. The fact that he almost seems sarcastic in his writing doesn’t help me out either.
In terms of the writing what’s been hard for me is writing with such clarity. I’ve never expressed my argument with phrases like “In this paper I argue that”. I just think my writing has to mature. I instinctually go to a 5-paragraph high school style paper, and if my writings going to improve I have to break that habit. What’s been easy about college writing is pulling quotes from the text. IN my papers I feel like my quotes flow coherently and help support my argument. I might need a little help with developing my own commentary after I put a quote in however.
Pingback: Catherinew64
Pingback: cmc16