Help incorporating FDR ideas into college paper

[AmandaO]

I'm looking for some feedback about trying to incorporate some of the ideas from FDR into an academic essay for an undergrad political science class. I could use some input on whether or not I should even try to do this or if I should just scrap the idea and write to an easy A which is what I typically do. 

 

First the logistics:

 

• The prompt is basically to write about "Radical thought in America", is it necessary for "real change", if so, in what form? Linking reading from the class (which are your typical major "thinkers" in poli-sci classes).
• The teacher has really been pushing us to take an "intellectual chance" and the one paper I've had graded I did well on so I think he's genuinely willing to reward thinking outside of the box (I know this shouldn't be outside of the box but for most people it is). I got the chance to very briefly touch on the idea that true societal change will have to start in a peaceful childhood and he reacted positively to the idea in general
• I only have 3 double spaced type-written pages and less than a week to do this is in
• My basic idea is to say that radical thought/action is necessary in the form of extending the NAP to children (haven't worked out if I will say that laws need to be passed to make spanking etc illegal. I've accepted that I will probably have to pander to the statists viewpoint to some degree)

My main issues/questions:

• Is it smart to try to address this topic in only 3 pages without the time/space to be able to discuss UPB at any length that would make a strong case for it? 
• I will have to use "readings from the class" to back up some of my assertions so I'm not sure how directly I can cite Stef's work. I think (sadly) that I can link some of the ideas to the radical animal rights and environmental activists we've read. I do feel like I can cite him to some extent because I'm "taking an intellectual risk" and we're writing about "radical thought". (Sorry for all the quotation marks but typing this out really makes me see how ridiculous it is that these ideas are "radical").

Has anyone done this in an academic setting? Have an examples or feedback from instructors? Should I try to do this or just right about how we should be liberating animals or something? 

 

Thanks for any feedback!

 

[kerou]

I think putting forward the question, "Radical, compared to what?"

In many ways, the current political system, which people view as lukewarm or moderate, is incredibly radical. So in essence, political change is just one form of radical thought with a moving benchmark.

 

Rationality is a good option to combat radical movements--as political movement inevitably become a series of platitudes and repeated hashtags.

 

Following the logic and extending that logic to it's natural conclusion would be a good first step.

The logic of, "What is the difference between love making and rape? How about theft and charity?" Well, the answer is the initiation of force against others will. You follow that note to it's logical conclusion, and you will get the NAP as the benchmark of morality. Under that framework, any sort of political movement is, by nature, a radical movement for the advocation of force--which has been established as immoral under this logical framework.

 

I think if you follow the logic and create a good argument, under the given framework the professor can't say anything negative about it without a good counter argument.

 

Best of luck!

[PGP]

It's really great to see this getting into Uni's. When people say "I have an idea", did they have "an idea"? Probably not, they almost certainly remembered an idea someone else came up with. Why is this? Perhaps because original thought is so damn hard. 

Now, in terms of peaceful parenting, could the case be made that PP itself is necessary for radical thought to take place in the first place on any grand scale? ie independent thought free from trauma. So, while PP is perhaps radical in the cultural context o f today and the entirety of human history, it could be a door to heretofore un-imagined thinking and creativity. 

It's interesting to me, as I am reading Altuchers book "Choose Yourself" and the new book on money he has published. He makes the case for "ideas" forming the basis of any future economy, with the gate-keepers of old and of today circumvented. I think he is right and PP fits snugly into success in this new world. 

[luxfelix]

I say go for it! (And do share your work here too!  )

 

JSTOR can be a decent resource, though just like wikipedia, you'll need to double check the sources. I remember there was a presentation posted here on FDR about how the level of violence used in a regime change correlated to the likelihood of stability in the near future (a good tangent into how America's nation-building efforts have fared through various levels of violence; see Japan vs. Banana Republics vs. Iraq...).

 

You could compare the conventional 1800s bomb-throwing "anarchist" stereotype to examples of non-violent relationships continuing to develop throughout America and the world.

 

The suggestion by kerou would certainly work; in the manner he describes, you can take any required source and use it as a springboard to the logical conclusions of UPB and/or what you want to say (it will be strongest if it's both backed by facts and something you believe).

 

My most analogous experience to this was a paper I wrote about how architecture (specifically acoustics of the built environment) are currently (and previously) used by leaders as power-projecting prosthetics to aid in ruling others. 

[Omegahero09]

My main issues/questions:

• Is it smart to try to address this topic in only 3 pages without the time/space to be able to discuss UPB at any length that would make a strong case for it? 
• I will have to use "readings from the class" to back up some of my assertions so I'm not sure how directly I can cite Stef's work. I think (sadly) that I can link some of the ideas to the radical animal rights and environmental activists we've read. I do feel like I can cite him to some extent because I'm "taking an intellectual risk" and we're writing about "radical thought". (Sorry for all the quotation marks but typing this out really makes me see how ridiculous it is that these ideas are "radical").

Thanks for any feedback!

 

It wouldn't be smart if you can't cite Stef's work in your paper. Double check with your professor to see if you can "take the intellectual leap" so that you can really submit something he's never seen before; sell the idea to him. Prof's love seeing new things, since their job requires them to trudge through hundreds of half-assed papers.

 

If you can, all you need to do is define UPB in your thesis statement and refer to it in the body of your essay and you should be fine, that's the beauty of essays, so long as their written well you can write whatever you want.

 

If he wants you to stick to his sources, crank out another easy A. It'll hurt your brain, but it won't hurt your GPA.

 

Also, I used to peer-grade essays back in college, if you need another resource to gauge the strength of your work, I'm pretty good at it. That goes for anyone of course!

[AmandaO]

Thanks for all of your input. Unfortunately, due to time constraints, I'm presenting a pretty dumbed down version of "leave people the fuck alone". 

[Irwin Leonardo]

How about.. philosophy is sexy?

[bitcoin]

Thanks for all of your input. Unfortunately, due to time constraints, I'm presenting a pretty dumbed down version of "leave people the fuck alone". 

Its not unfortunate, I don't think. It sounds like you are very intelligent and have a lot to offer the world. I am certain you will feel much more fulfilled and provide much more to world through your many future endeavours rather than incorporating what you didn't in your college essay. Just my brief thoughts. Continue to do what your doing or at least attempting to do; it seems to me like you are / will accomplish great things.