Philosophy Essay 2/Ren and the human ethical condition/The eastern ethical approach in real life terms/ Buddhist ethics of liberation
There are three options for essay two below. Make sure you indicate which option you have chosen in the title of your essay. For example:
John Smith Essay 2 Option 1
Option 1: Ren and the human ethical condition
Confucian ethics revolves around “ren” – the benevolent character or “human-heartedness” that is at the basis of our humanity. While “humanity” and “morality” are commonly linked in western ethical theory, ren implies an essential interconnection between persons and roles. This interconnection goes all the way back to a metaphysical explanation of our human condition. In the case of ren an individual (or role) is not and cannot ever be an isolated entity; I am me and you are you in so much as we interconnection to each other. This also goes for our social roles. For example, a father or parent cannot be what he is without a child. Accordingly a father can become a good parent only through a recognition of the interconnection between him, “his” child and the family of which they are both a part. This means that to talk about “father” means we are equally talking about “child” and the overall “family” equally. Thus to be a good parent the father will learn from the son how to parent as much as the son will learn about life (and parenting) from the father.
For option one, think about the metaphysical explanation of the human condition that ren implies. If Confucius is correcthat we are that interconnected, what does this say about traditions or cultures that celebrate individuality and individual development as a central goal?
Your answer will be in two parts:
Part 1: To what extent are humans individual beings?
Most of us would agree that humans really are social creatures but the question is – What do the terms “social”, “relational” or even “inter-relational” creatures really mean? Furthermore, what implication does your explanation of these terms have on our lives as individual social relational/inter-relational creatures?
Part 2: Given your answer to part one, explain the role of traditions in the human condition?
Confucius argued that humans are non-instinctual creatures in terms of our moral condition – we are choosing and leaning ethical creatures. If he is correct, what role does tradition play in our human ethical condition?
Make sure you define “tradition” and its parts. Then think about how traditions and mentoring relationships are carried out in our society today and in the past. Perhaps you would like to discuss the role has tradition played in your ethical life? If you do so, make sure you link your argument back to what you argued in part 1.
Option 2: The eastern ethical approach in real life terms
In this section we have seen a ethical approach involving a strange relationship between “doing” and “not-doing”. We discussed this ethical framework in Daoist ethics of Wu-wei, as well as, Hindu Dharma Ethics as Yogic Action. For option two apply this doing/not-doing approach to a real world scenario.
Your answer will contain two parts:
Part 1: State and explain the ethical approach you will be explaining.
Make sure you explain who/what it involves, and how it involves them. For example if you choose wu-wei, make sure you explain wu-wei and its relation to the Dao and human action. Or if you settle on the yogic action approach make sure you explain what yogic action is, who it involves, and how it involves them.
Part 2: Apply the principle to a real world scenario.
You are welcome to use a personal experience or an abstract example. Either way make sure it is an example that your reader can connect with. Furthermore, make sure you explain: (a) the context, to include who is involved, and (b) the application of the ethical principle from part one.
Option 3: Buddhist ethics of liberation
Like Confucianism, Buddhism also challenges our notion of an individual, exclusive self. However, Buddhism argues that the sense of self or the “ego-self” we feel behind our actions is but an illusion. This contrived ego-based-self is not only unreal, it is the source of our suffering. Explore this “self” you feel for option three.
You answer will contain two parts:
Part 1: What is the nature of the “self” (the “ego-self”)?
Who, what or where is this viewer behind the view? From where or what does it arise?
Part 2: What role does this “ego-self” play in your life?
Is Buddha correct that the idea of self is the “home” and a significant “cause” of your suffering? If so, what can be done to avoid this undesirable suffering?
Information to read to make sure the paper is great when you write it. Information you need to read:
General Guide Commentary: DEPTH of Explanation in a Philosophy Paper
As was pointed out in the class-wide feedback email for Essay 1, many authors did a good job telling the reader their argument while simultaneously failing to teach the reader the meaning behind the terms of their argument. As this is a critical element of philosophical writing, it has great impact on essay assessment in this class. And that is why I intend to address this topic with a bit more depth here. In so doing, I will reiterate the information shared in the class-wide feedback email and add to its content in order to clarify the issue for future essays.
Once you have settled on a reasonable response to the question given the purpose of the assignment, the next goal is to create a well-organized, highly-detailed writing plan. This plan will serve to anchor the way you go about communicating your argument in written form. When you are formulating and developing your argument in this planning stage, make sure you do not assume too much knowledge of your reader. Instead assume the least amount of knowledge needed for them to read and comprehend your writing (they know what language is, and how it works for example). Your job as the author is not to assume that the reader knows anything about the topic, or anything regarding your ideas about it; your job is to teach them about these elements through your written contribution. And doing so requires that you anticipate the reader’s questions about the topic, and your reply to it, rather than assume previous knowledge.
With this in view, think of philosophical writing as a process of trying to teach your reader your argument about the topic by providing critical descriptions of the key concepts your argument presents. Depth of description issues often arise in the essay assignments from two main causes: 1) the author selects a poor argument to the assigned essay topic/questions; and/or 2) the author simply fails to provide critical descriptions of the key terms of her argument. As the first issue arises under the topic of the PURPOSE of writing in this course (a topic that will be addressed in another Discussion Board post), I will focus my attention here on the latter cause.
To begin with, it is important to remember that philosophy is a process of engagement that relies on clarity of thought. When philosophy appears in written form this clarity principle comes to light in the process of explaining both the facts and reasons behind the presented argument. Within the context of DEPTH of written argument description the most common issue that arose in Essay 1 was – many authors did a good job of stating the facts of their argument, while simultaneously failing to clarify the reasons behind the facts. An author may have done well to clearly and directly state the principle of their argument – saying something like, “The telos I will clarify here is ‘ultimate happiness’” for example. Such a statement is a direct “statement of fact”; it clearly identifies the telos that the author’s argument will explore. Stating this argument in this plain manner is a great start to the argument clarification process, but it must not be mistaken for its endpoint. Further explanation is needed to clearly communicate what the author means by a “telos of ultimate happiness”.
In philosophical writing we not only have to identify our arguments by stating its key terms, we have to explain the meaning behind those terms and their connection to the overall topic. This is how we teach our position to the reader – we clarify our argument by providing a critical description of its essential components.
But note that in teaching the reader our argument, we not only need to clarify your argument’s key terms, you also need to help the reader understand the context or question your argument addresses. Note that the Essay 1, Option 1 question contained several key terms in itself – “trait,” “ethical condition,” and “telos” arose in the question (not just your response to the question). In the process of making an argument in a philosophical manner, any author choosing to write about this topic must at minimum briefly outline what these three key terms mean. Offering such an explanation helps the reader understand the general framework of the question the author’s argument will address. And making sure the reader understands the question is a necessary step in helping them to understand your argument about the question.
Once the general topic (the author’s argument will address) has been clarified, the next step is to directly and clearly identify a few terms that will form the foundation of the author’s argument or reply to the topic. As our general topic in Essay 1, Option 1 concerns the human condition there are three central questions that we should anticipate arising from a thoughtful reader: what are humans, what is their purpose, and how do they pursue that purpose? But keep in mind that our specific topic in Essay 1, Option 1 is not about the human condition at large; it is about the human ethical condition in the framework of a telos (leaving out the third question concerning “how of the pursuit” for another time). Given what ethical engagement involves (there will be more on topic below) the main traits that form the foundation of our ethical being includes our ability to think, feel, choose and act in the context of our deep social connection to others. While our physical attributes are a clear and important part of our overall human condition, it is not clear how our physicality (say our opposable thumbs for example) is of preeminent importance in our human ethical endeavors (unless those opposable thumbs leads to dexterity which allows us to act and change the world in a particular way).
General Guide Commentary: PURPOSE of a Philosophy Paper
As strange as this may sound, the answer put forth in your essay is not more impactful to your grade than the way you present your argument to the reader. In fact, focusing less on your answer and more on how you will clearly explain your answer to the reader is a good strategy in this class. While your answer and its explanation both play a key role in producing good philosophical writing in this class, it is important to keep in mind that they are separate issues in regard to the writing process.
The class-wide feedback email for essay 1 pointed out that a few essays presented research drawn for other sources as the basis of their argument, while others presented key terms (identifying traits or the telos) that were overly ambiguous or too complex given the purpose of the writing assignments in this class. I would like to address these issues with a bit more depth here.
PURPOSE Issue 1: Presenting research drawn for other sources as the basis of your argument
The instructions for the assignment as stated in “How to Successfully Complete and Submit and Essay/Response Assignment” says: “An essay in this class amounts to a critical thinking paper outlining the author’s ideas about the topic/question.” This means that we are looking for an essay containing several parts, correlating with multiple paragraphs, coming together to provide the reader with a critical description of the author’s position about the topic in question.
“The author’s position” is highlighted here because essays in this class are not research papers – they are critical thinking papers. The goal is for the author to critically communicate his or her idea about the topic or question to the reader. Of course “critical” here does not mean “criticism;” it means in a manner that reveals the essential elements that provide the foundation for the argument presented. In simpler terms, a critical thinking paper in this class is one that teaches the reader the authors position by revealing the more subtle elements of the argument – hence clarification is our main goal here.
In this type of critical thinking/clarification paper, as is the case in philosophical inquiry in general, you must do your own thinking. While the examples put forth by Aristotle, Socrates, Jesus, Laozi, Buddha, etc. are helpful in the course of our philosophical inquiry, we neither have their minds, nor live their lives. While our predecessors and heroes may inspire us by bringing questions and examples to our awareness, we must live and think for ourselves. While investigating the ideas of others may act as a catalyst for your thinking, researching, regurgitating and analyzing what you discover in the ideas of others does not put you in the drivers-seat to critically explain your ideas about the topic.
So, placing too much attention on identifying where your ideas were drawn from (say a religious text, the constitution, your parents, etc.), or explaining who else shares or talks about them (some obscure academic or renowned philosopher), or citing how they make you feel, etc. are not our focus. If these elements become the focus of your paper, good research coupled with correct citation will only take you so far grade wise. This is because our purpose in these essays is to analyze and clarify what you mean by your argument, not what someone else meant by theirs.
PURPOSE Issue 2: presenting too many ambiguous ideas, or a single idea that is too complex for these essay assignments
While coming up with your own idea about the topic is sometimes difficult, it is a necessary first step toward a successful essay in this class. But keep in mind that any-old-answer that you come up with not necessarily sufficient for our task. The ideas communicated in your essay may be your (good) ideas about the topic, but they may not be good ideas to put forward in this writing assignment. This is because our purpose in these essays is not merely to explain your good ideas about the topic at hand, it is to explain them in a way that meets the standard of clarity and adequacy of a philosophical essay. This issue of clarity and adequacy links back to philosophy and its approach to relationship between facts and reasons.
When engaged in philosophical inquiry, merely stating the facts of an argument in response to a philosophical question is not sufficient. In philosophical inquiry we not only need the facts, but we need the reasons involved in the facts. Making the link between a fact and its reasons explicit (not implicit) not only helps us understand the author’s argument with depth and clarity, it is a key standard of how your argument will be graded in this class. This means that while a direct answer to the question often presents the facts of the author’s response to the topic, in teaching the reader the meaning behind the facts of her argument the author must provide the reader a critical description of the key terms the argument presents.
So, which of your answers to the topic would be sufficient for this critical explanation purpose? When a student chooses an answer to the essay topic/questions that is too complex (say containing too many complex principles or elements – e.g. a “human telos” of “happiness” in the context of “just” and “peaceful” “pursuits” of “actual” “verifiable” “truth”) or too ambiguous (say “happiness” is the human telos with no further explanation) the issue is neither the argument itself, nor its presentation in response to the topic/questions. The issue falls within the context of the assignment – namely choosing an argument that cannot be sufficiently addressed and clarified in a 3-5 page philosophical essay. And this assignment is not just about the question, and your response to it – it is also about how well you come to understand and develop your philosophical writing approach.
So, how should you begin tackling the writing assignment in this course? The first answer is that, in order to be successful, you must understand the following elements:
1) the purpose of philosophical writing;
2) the topic and questions of the essay assignment;
3) your argument as it arises in the context of #1 and #2.
The assignment instructions (again found in “How to Successfully Complete and Submit an Essay/Response Assignment”) coupled with this and the other forms of feedback for Essay 1 should be helpful. Then, your active engagement the course reading materials (including the text/digital docs./videos, slides, study guides) should help you with #3. But of course that is as long as you remember that we are looking to analyze and clarify your ideas here.
Once you grasp the focus of our purpose, the question, and the reading materials, the first step is to finding a good argument to put forth in your essay (and “good” here involves limiting the scope of her argument). Keep in mind that the general rule of thumb regarding selecting a good argument, in keeping what I am explaining here, it is better to argue more about less, rather than less about more in philosophy. The reason behind this fact ties back to the nature of philosophy, and its focus on clarity of exploration and explanation, rather than just the greatness of the answer itself.
In summary, if the issue of PURPOSE came up for you in your feedback for essay 1, keep in mind that the central purpose of authorship in this class is not only focused on your argument about the question. Instead the central purpose centers on the clear and adequate communication of your argument. This means that you will want to focus on several key steps in your next essay:
First Step: you will need to set an appropriate scope for YOUR argument. Again, this scope will be appropriate to the extent that it is informed by: 1) the purpose of philosophical writing; 2) the topic and questions of the essay assignment; and 3) your argument as it arises in the context of #1 and #2. It will be inappropriate to the extent that it either does not address the topic/questions at hand, or to the extent that it attempts to present and explain an all-encompassing answer exhaustively addressing the totality of the topic. Keeping in mind that you will have to clarify both the facts and reasons of your argument in 3-5 pages, it is better to argue more about less, rather than less about more in these essay assignments.
Second Step: start communicating your explanation by directly state the key terms of your argument. Creativity is not the focus; direct clarity is. The goal here is to present the facts of your argument in a manner that will lead the reader to an adequate grasp of your position. As such, it is best to state the central claim or focus of your argument (what we called the “facts” of your argument above) right up-front in a direct, clear and concise manner. At this stage simplicity is not a vice. It can serve as a useful starting point – an invitation to deeper exploration and explanation that will come next.
Third Step: go on to breakdown the main terms of your argument. Do so by clearly explaining the meaning behind the key terms (these being the reasons upon which the facts arise). Explain what makes each term what it is – essentially teaching the reader what you mean by each term. But do not stop at the individual elements in their individual form in this explanation. Explain how they relate to each other and the overall topic. In this stage your explanations are making the reasons of your argument more explicit; so keep in mind that the goal here to teach, rather than just tell, the reader your argument. The purpose of a philosophical essay is not merely to express the author’s ideas; it is to communicate them to the reader. And doing so means that the author must do her best to account for the fact that the reader needs clarification of the ideas presented, not just their expression. And again, while simplicity is often easier to understand, complexity can be clearly communicated. Doing so just takes greater explanation and superior tactfulness in the authors approach and delivery (both being the focus of the argument planning and organization phase).
