Undergrad Essay Test Response

No, not one of my undergrads; me. I am cleaning the filing system, especially old school and personal documents, and going through an emotional rollercoaster (consisting mostly of the “down” parts as everything I find seems to scream terrible choices and squandered potential). Among my old college materials, I found some blue books from tests I took during my senior year at BYU, 1993 (eek!). Some of them are hugely reassuring. Not all the answers were great, and I didn’t get A’s on all the tests, but it’s nice to be reminded that (1) I’m not an idiot, and (2) it’s OK to expect my own students to learn how to think. I was almost 20 years dumber back then, and my answers reflect that, but I’m proud of my historical self anyway, given his limitations.

The essay transcribed below came from an exam in a capstone class that we non-honors students took (oh, how I wish I’d just sucked it up and done honors…) instead of writing a thesis. The prof (Harold Miller) was not exactly warm and fuzzy, but he was brilliant, and committed to teaching effectively. He had a strong sense that students must be taught critical thinking and encouraged to question assumptions. He might have fit in at Berkeley or Harvard, which explains the rumor that he had resigned from BYU in protest before I met him. My essay answer is after the cut. Laugh all you want, but it’s about as good as my essay tests ever got.

I don’t remember the question, but we were studying a turgid philosophical text by Richard Rorty, and a more popular-political-philosophical book by Francis Fukuyama (google him and shake your head). I am certain the question asked for our opinion, because at that point in my education I was too smart to spout off on a final exam, unless it would secure me points. Before you ask, no, I don’t have any recollection of what things like “megalothymic” mean.

The United States was formed in Lockean terms, injected with thymos. That is Fukuyama’s position on our union, as I understand it. I also agree with it. Fukuyama recognized that Hobbes and Locke would have killed all forms of thymos off, and made desire and reason take its place. He also realized that the framers of the union in 1776 and 1789 followed largely in these two philosophers’ footsteps, but that they were motivated by and conscious of another factor than logos and eros: thymos, this irrational spiritedness.

Thymos drove the spirit of 1776, and pushed men to irrationally sacrifice their lives and property for freedom. So in a real sense, it was thymos, educated out of its megalothymic form and into its isothymic form, which motivated our liberal democracy. Economic forces (logos, eros) also played a large part, but thymos was the differentiating variable, leading inevitably to our government. However, even though this explanation works, it is not the best possible motivator for liberal democracy.

Liberal democracy provides the best possible environment for expression, recognition, freedom, growth, etc. — in short, for human happiness — that we know of (although it does not guarantee it), and men will strive valiantly to overcome all obstacles in order to insure this opportunity for themselves. We can assume that their thymos (located in the lower portion of the occipital lobe) drives this process. [ed: Although I have always been given to inappropriate humor, I think I was actually referencing, here,  one of the professor's own sarcastic in-class comments]

Consider, however, the case of a woman who would rather die than be raped, but allows herself to live so that her children can still have a mom. Or consider a man in Vietnam who kills some Asians on their own land only so that his family will be insured a future by his continued life, or throws himself on a grenade to save his buddies. These acts are by no means mandatory, nor are they necessarily thymotic, although Fukuyama’s thymos plays a large role in them. They are acts of love.

If two societies begin history [footnote: "by starting out with the bloody battle, master/slave, then tyrrany, etc."] at the same time, on different planets (to use Hegel/Kojéve/Fukuyama’s HISTORY scenario), and one society just happens to love one another mutually, more than the first society, which will “end History” first? Will a man who necessarily loves no one but himself fight harder than one who loves his family, kin, and fellow oppressed beings, to create or find a liberal environment in which to live?

Remember the 2,000 stripling warriors in the book of Alma. They fought harder than anyone, because of love. Remember the 400 years of peace following Christ’s ministry on this continent. Did it just happen, or did the people love each other enough to actively seek out ways of promoting liberty and tolerance? [ed: at BYU, scriptures are acceptable reference materials in nearly all courses :) ]

Fukuyama got it almost right. Educated thymos, with the addition of true love toward one’s fellow man (meaning man in the truly sexually dimorphic use of the term), in order that one strives to assure liberty for those one loves, is the best possible motivator for liberal democracy.

Okay, I see the problems with it, but still, if my students wrote me an answer like this, I might well give a response like Dr. Miller wrote at the end of my scribbles: “Darrin – This demonstrates superb thinking and insight!! Joy – 25/25″

The “Joy” is a nice little ego boost. It’s good to know not every action in my past was a screwup :)