UNIT 3 PHILOSOPHYSAC 2CRITICAL COMPARISON

Pointers for essay structure

What you need to do:

Present your knowledge of the viewpoints of TWO (or more) philosophers in relation to the good life

Analyse, or explain in detail these viewpoints and the arguments they used in the set texts to support these

Compare and contrast these viewpoints – this means identify BOTH similarities AND differences

Evaluate the arguments they have used – assess whether they are sound, or if they rest on assumptions

Reach a conclusion about the relative value of the arguments, this means state which (if either) you hold the most valid and/or convincing and/or relevant

Justify your conclusion

Possible ordering – Approach A

Person 1- essential aspects of the good life - arguments used to justify these

Evaluation of Person 1’s arguments Person 2 - essential aspects of the good life which

are similar to Person 1 - arguments used to justify these

Person 2 – essential aspects of the good life which are different to Person 1

- arguments used to justify these Evaluation of Person 2’s arguments Overall support for Person 1’s viewpoints

- justification for this support (including justification for NOT supporting Person 2’s arguments)

Approach B

Aspect of the good life I support This aspect as presented by Person 1

Arguments Person 1 used to present this viewpointEvaluation of these arguments

Contrast this viewpoint with that of Person 2Arguments Person 2 used to present this viewpointEvaluation of these arguments

Point of similarity between Person 2 and Person 1 (and/or own stance) Arguments used to present these viewpointsEvaluation of these arguments

Raise potential flaws with own approach to the good life Identify how Person 1 would respond to these flaws

Arguments used to support this counter-claimEvaluation of these arguments

Reiteration of initial aspect of the good life I support

Approach C

Person 1’s approach to the good lifeArguments used to support this

Contrast with Person 2’s approach to the good lifeArguments used to support this

Contrast with Person 3’s approach to the good lifeArguments used to support this

Evaluation of Person 1’s arguments Evaluation of Person 2’s arguments Evaluation of Person 3’s arguments Statement of own approach to the good life

based on evaluations.

Important features of essay structure

There is no real right or wrong way to structure your response, however

You must have a clear introduction in which you introduce the topic, the philosophers you will consider and your own stance/or the relevance of this discussion

Each body paragraph must have a clear, independent purpose. This should be stated in a topic sentence

You must have a clear conclusion in which you state which approach you support and why

Important features cont…

Do not waffle, exaggerate or get off topic Do not give your own opinion as if it is only that –

you should be offering reasonable and objective arguments with specific examples in support of your viewpoint

Do not simply state the philosophers’ viewpoints – you must ANALYSE – ie. explain in some detail the arguments they presented

Evaluation is not whether you like or agree with an argument – it is whether the argument is strong or weak, based on unsupported assumptions, relevance etc

Expression

You can use 1st Person, but be careful not to resort to a personal rant. You must present your stance rationally and objectively in the form of arguments

Use real life examples wherever possible, this shows your understanding of the application of the arguments.

However, make sure the examples are appropriate, straightforward and relevant

Avoid emotive language as much as possible. Try to remain calm, neutral and objective at all times – remember this is a critical essay, not a persuasive one.

Referencing

When you quote directly from a set text you reference as such: (Nietzsche, 37) (Plato, 5)

If you have sourced quotes from these philosophers but from different texts use (Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra, pg 231)

If you have quoted from a website or a text not written by one of the philosophers use footnotes

You do not need a bibliography for this essay

Keep in mind…

You don’t need to address all possible aspects of the good life, just the ones relevant to the philosophers you analyse

A thorough analysis of two or three central points is better than a vague acknowledgement of several

You need to consider more than just the most obvious similarities and differences. You will be rewarded for finding more subtle points of comparison

Don’t try to tell me everything you know about that philosopher – your discussion should directly and consistently address the key viewpoints on the good life raised

You will not be assessed on your eloquence or your spelling – you will be assessed on the clarity, technicality and objectivity of your expression