Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.)
Classics
Columbia University
1990
See all Profiles
Faculty
Faculty
Alexander Tulin
Associate Professor
Department/Office
- Department of English
School/College
- College of Arts & Sciences
Additional Positions
-
Associate ProfessorDepartment of English, Associate Professors
Biography
Dr. Tulin has a PhD in Classics from Columbia University, and has been at Howard since 1990. He has published on topics in Ancient Greek Philosophy, Plato, Ancient Law, Rhetoric, and is currently interested in the cross-cultural interstices between Antiquity and Modernity.
From 2017-2021, he was the Chair of the Department of Classics. But with the closing of Classics in 2021, Dr. Tulin is now in the Dept. of English, where his primary teaching interests are in Modernism, modern art from 1870-1950, and in the 20th century novel in Europe and America.
For all publications (in .pdf format), see: https://alexandertulin.wordpress.com
Education & Expertise
Education
Master of Philosophy (M.Phil.)
Columbia University
1986
Master of Arts (M.A.)
Columbia University
1984
Bachelor of Arts (B.A.)
State University of New York, College at Purchase
1984
Expertise
Classics
Modernism, 1870-1945 (Literary and Cultural)
American Literature
Modernist Art
Rhetoric (Ancient and Modern)
20th Century Fascism and Totalitarianism
Ancient Philosophy
Ancient Homicide Law
Accomplishments
Accomplishments
Provost's Distinguished Service Award, Jan. 2021
Chair Leadership Academy, Summer 2017
COAS Award for Outstanding Service (for Interdisciplinary Studies Dept.), May 2017
HU Merit Awards for Sustained Superior Performance (various years)
Publications and Presentations
Publications and Presentations
On the Refutation of Polemarchus
On the Refutation of Polemarchus: Analysis and Dialectic in Republic I
The dialectical passages found in Book I of Plato’s Republic have long troubled students of the dialogue, for many of the arguments appear to be confused, possibly fallacious, or resting, at the very least, on premises implausible and unpersuasive. But if we overlook for a moment the material aspects of these arguments (e.g., abandoning attempts to determine the precise philosophical import of this or that particular premise or inference), and focus instead, so far as is possible, on the purely formal aspects of these arguments, many of the difficulties that scholars have noted will quickly evaporate; at the same time, a proper analysis of one of these passages, Socrates’ refutation of Polemarchus, will cast some needed light both on the purpose of Bk. I.