Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Critical rhetoricians have become increasingly interested in the location of vernacular discourses. Yet, rhetoric scholars have not developed methods to analyze texts as they are produced within vernacular communities. Drawing from rhetorical theory and qualitative methodologies, I propose a rhetorical ethnography with a reinvigoration and reinterpretation of invention, kairos, and phronesis in an effort to provide rhetoricians with the necessary tools to advocate alongside vernacular discourse communities.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: ABSTRACT

At first sight the Flyvbjerg debate in America looks like one more example of the ongoing battle between the mainstream and the underdogs, method driven and problem driven research, quantitative and qualitative analysis, etc. If one digs one inch deeper, it turns out that there is more to the discussion of Flyvbjerg’s special conception of phronesis than being for or against the dominance and primacy of positivistic models of causality in political science. A 2x2 table appears distinguishing 4 basic models for observing and explaining ‘the political’ from the ‘outside-in’ and the ‘inside-out’. Thus, much disagreement in the discipline has to do with the fact that nearly everyone tends to overinterpret the significance and relevance of the problem and method required to observe and explain one’s own ‘cell’. In the case of Flyvbjerg himself, this means overstating the role of intellectuals, like himself, to observe and explain ‘the political’ from the ‘inside-out’ as a ‘true state’ brought about by those few who are most wise and capable of action with regard to things that are good or bad for man.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Whether consciously or not, political theory has traditionally approached Aristotle by way of stark contrasts with his teacher Plato. Whether in terms of a contrast between the particular and the universal, multiple appearances and the singular form, or the empirical and the metaphysical, this distinction has attained the status of presumed truth in much of philosophy and political theory. This paper draws on the work of the philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer in order to cast doubt on this categorical distinction between Aristotle on the one hand and Plato on the other. By drawing our attention to the sense in which both Aristotle and Plato concern themselves with the same problem--the idea of the good--Gadamer uncovers convergences and parallels that are potentially fruitful for political theory. This paper concludes by applying this insight to a particularly fraught segment of the contemporary political theoretical landscape--the appropriation of Aristotle in the philosophy of social science.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Hans J. Morgenthau is rarely associated with the works of Aristotle. But Morgenthau cites The Politics as one of the ten most influential books he had read in his life. The recent publication of his lectures on Aristotle (Political Theory and International Affairs: Hans J. Morgenthau on Aristotle's The Politics) suggests that he drew upon on Aristote to develop his understanding of politics and the study thereof. In this paper, I examine one particular way in which Morgenthau learned from Aristotle: his theoretical framework and methodology. Many have recently turned to Scientific Man and Power Politics as an early example of his theoretical development. When reading his lectures on Aristotle alongside this Scientific Man, one finds the impact of Aristotle's ideas, especially his conception of phronesis and its relation to the study of politics, to be quite profound. I use this investigation of Morgenthau to critically assess the state of international political theory today, especially those works that fall in the genre of ethics and international affairs.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: This paper considers how and why human beings like and dislike prudence. It goes on to raise the broad question of whether in sum prudence can be liked by human beings and what it would take to bring human beings to like prudence. The paper grounds and focuses its considerations by comparing and contrasting the figures of Odysseus, Achilles, Ajax, and Achilles' son Neoptolemus.