|
|
Richard.Jewell.net |
CollegeWriting.info
|
|
|
CollegeWriting.info |
|
 |
Sample Analyses by Students |
|
See
also an analysis of a text at Harvard.
The samples below are papers by students, unless specifically noted. They are examples of "A" level undergraduate writing or entry-level professional work. To get a better idea of how this type of paper is written, you will want to look at all the samples. Then compare the samples to each other and to what the "Basics" part of this chapter says.
The authors of all sample student papers in this Web site have given their permission in writing to have their work included in CollegeWriting.info. All such samples remain copyrighted by their original authors.
Unless otherwise noted, sample papers do not necessarily meet all requirements
an individual instructor or work supervisor may have. In addition, they are
single spaced, whereas a proper manuscript given to an instructor or
supervisor normally should be double spaced unless another format has been
requested.
|
|
|
Sample One: Analysis Using Three Viewpoints |
SPECIAL NOTES: This paper is written in MLA style. It also has a "Summary" section that summarizes the reading that the essay analyzes.
Inver Hills College
Eng 1108, College Composition
Analysis
© 2002 by Joe Delgado
Concerning the Death Penalty
by
Joe Delgado
Introduction
In the article “The Case Against the Death Penalty,” which appears in
Crime and Criminals: Opposing Viewpoints, Eric Freedman argues that the death
penalty not only does not deter violent crime but also works against reducing
the crime rate. Freedman says, “The
death penalty not only is useless in itself, but counterproductive . . . ”
(140). This paper will analyze
Freedman’s article from the viewpoints of a middle-age working man, a poor
person, and a politician.
Summary
Freedman argues that the death penalty does not deter crime.
In his article, he argues that states that use the death penalty have
crime rates nearly indistinguishable from those states that do not have the
death penalty. He also adds that
criminal cases in which the death penalty is sought are much more expensive to
investigate and try, thus denying much-needed funds to programs that have been
proven to reduce crime.
A Middle-Age Working Man
A middle-age working man would probably agree with Freedman’s point of
view with relation to the financial aspect of capital punishment because
Freedman talks about how much more the death penalty costs than life
imprisonment. He says, “In Florida, each execution costs $3,200,000, six times
the expense of life imprisonment” (141).
The workingman would probably be amazed at how much the execution
actually costs compared to how much life imprisonment costs.
The workingman would probably wonder why the death penalty is even sought
when life imprisonment seems to accomplish the same goal for much less money.
The
working man would also probably agree with Freedman because the workingman would
rather see his tax money spent on more productive programs.
Freedman says, “The reality is that, in a time of fixed or declining
budgets, those dollars are taken away from a range of programs that would be
beneficial” (142). The workingman
would add that with the government taking so much of his income in taxes, it
could at least do something more productive than killing people.
A
working man would probably be upset at how much money is spent on just trying a
person in a capital punishment case. Freedman
says, “Thus, the taxpayers foot the bill for all the extra costs of capital
pretrial and trial proceedings and then must pay either for incarcerating the
prisoner for life or the expenses of a retrial, which itself often leads to a
life sentence” (142). The
workingman would be upset because not only is the government using his money to
try these criminals, but it is using more of his money to retry these criminals
just because they didn’t get the verdict they wanted in the first place.
The working man might also be upset that more money has to be spent on extra
expenses that would not be incurred if it was not a capital punishment trial. Freedman says, “Much more investigation usually is done in
capital cases, particularly by the prosecution” (141).
The working man might be upset that just because the prosecution wants to
kill the defendant, he has to pay the extra cost so the prosecution can gain
more evidence even though it often leads to a life sentence instead of an
execution.
A Poor Person
A poor person would agree with Freedman because of how discriminating the
death penalty is. Such a person
would look at Freedman’s article and agree that many poor people are
discriminated against because they do not have the money to receive a high
quality of defense. Freedman says,
“ Most capital defendants cannot afford an attorney, so the court must appoint
counsel. Every major study of this
issue . . . has found that the quality of defense representation in capital
murder trials generally is far lower than in felony cases” (144). The poor person might see poor people as being targeted for
capital punishment simply because of the fact that they won’t be able to
defend themselves properly.
He
might also be outraged at the fact that people to whom he can relate are not
getting a proper defense because they cannot afford the best.
Freedman says, “[T]here is an overwhelming record of poor people being
subjected to convictions and death sentences that equally or more culpable—but
more affluent—defendants would not have suffered” (144).
Mark Costanzo, author of Just Revenge, agrees. He argues, “If you or
A
poor person would see the death penalty as a way to rid the world of poor people
because people might think they are different and don’t deserve to live.
Freedman says, “Jurors are more likely to sentence to death people who
seem different from themselves than individuals who seem similar to themselves”
(144). A poor person would probably
view most people as having more money and better things than he and that because
he doesn’t have the best things, he is different than everyone else. He
might feel bad because it seems like the world is against him and wants to get
rid of him.
He may also see the death penalty as trying to take away money from
programs that would benefit him and people like him. Freedman says,
A Politician
A politician would probably disagree with Freedman because he would
believe a price tag cannot be put on doing the things that are right. He would probably see the statistics Freedman gave as
irrelevant. Freedman says, “In
Florida, each execution costs $3,200,000, six times the expense of life
imprisonment” (141). The
politician would see these costs as very high but taken out of context.
He would most likely look to the statistics of how the death penalty has
actually been a crime deterrent, as proven by Jay Johansen in his article “Does
Death Penalty Deter Crime?” Johansen
says that the “[h]omicide rate is a mirror image of the number of executions.
Consistently as the number of executions goes down, the homicide rate
goes up, and when the number of executions goes up, the homicide rate goes down”
(138). He would see this as proof
that capital punishment is a deterrent, and it should remain legal as long as it
continues to deter crime.
A politician might use Johansen’s statistics to prove that the death
penalty should not be abolished. He
might see that even though a capital punishment case costs more, if the crime
rate goes down than we have fewer criminals to take to trial.
If we have fewer criminals to take to trial, we are actually saving more
money in the long run by keeping capital punishment legal.
A politician might be angry that Freedman does not show the actual
statistics of the crime rate as executions were outlawed and then when
executions were again legalized. He
might see Freedman as trying to divert people’s attention away
A politician might also disagree with Freedman because Freedman proposes to take a state’s right away. He would agree with Michael Levin that a state should have the right to enforce its laws however it sees fit. Levin says, “Well, the state must be able to enforce whatever it commands, or it is a state in name only” (83). Levin also states, “Once the state is granted the right to administer lesser punishments, it cannot be denied the right to kill” (83). The politician would strongly agree that a law abolishing capital punishment would be a law that is limiting a state’s right to pass judgement.
Conclusion
This
paper has shown how three different types of people might interpret Eric
Freedman’s article “The Case Against the Death Penalty,” which appeared in
Crime and Criminals: Opposing Viewpoints. Freedman
argues that the death penalty does nothing to deter crime but uses valuable
resources that could help control crime. Freedman
says, “The death penalty is not just useless—it is positively harmful and
diverts resources from genuine crime control measures” (145).
Freedman argues his point very well and logically and makes it very easy
for people to understand all of the harm capital punishment can inflict.
Whether capital punishment is ethical is still unclear, but what becomes
more obvious is this, that the social class of a person may directly influence
his or her opinion about capital punishment.
|
|
|
Sample Two: Analysis of Four Arguments |
SPECIAL NOTES: This paper is written in APA style. Because there are only two sources and this paper was not assigned as a research project, the authors' names and a publication date are not repeated after each quotation and paraphrase, nor is there a bibliography. This paper has a summary section. At the end, an optional final evaluation is offered.
University of Minnesota
Eng 1011, Honors College Composition
Analysis
© 2000 by John Webb
Suicides Using Guns: An Analysis
by
John Webb
Introduction
In the article "The Number of Gun-Related Teen Suicides is Exaggerated," David B. Kopel (1998) insists that removing firearms from homes would not reduce the rate of teen suicide. Kopel says, "Many gun-control advocates assert that removing firearms from the home would reduce the rate of teen suicide" (p. 56). Kopel also contends, "While the percentage of teen suicide by firearms is high in the United States, the numbers have remained stable for many years." This paper will analyze Kopel’s essay from the perspective of a gun-control advocate, with the help of the perspective developed in an article by Christopher Scanlan (1998), "Guns in the Home Contribute to Teen Suicide."
Summary
The introductory section of Kopel’s article states that gun-control advocates have exaggerated the extent of teen suicides by firearms. Kopel continues the article by saying that gun control advocates use false statistics in their reasoning and in their explanation for the rate of teen suicide. The next section of the article stresses how gun-control laws have no effect on the rate of teen suicides in United States. The last portion of Kopel’s essay mentions how gun-control advocates have resorted to using factoids written by different reporters around the country to try and get across their message of pro-gun control across.
Kopel uses a helpful source, Gary Kleck, to back up his arguments on the issue of teen suicide. Mr. Kleck is a Criminologist at Florida State University. Kleck conducted a study of suicide rates and gun laws in every American city with a population over 100,000. The concluding results were that there seemed to be no evidence that any of the gun-control laws had a statistical effect on suicide rates in teens. These findings back up Kopel’s argument that gun laws have no effect, and Kopel uses these findings to a great extent against the gun-control advocates.
Suicides Exaggerated?
A first point of analysis has to do with Kopel’s statement that gun-control advocates have exaggerated the extent of teen suicides by firearms. Kopel says, "If guns are not available, teenagers who want to kill themselves will merely find another method" (p. 56). Kopel insists that the percentage of teen suicide has remained stable for many years. From the mid-1950’s to the late 1970’s, teenage suicide rose sharply, and most of the increase was due to gun suicides. However, since then, the teenage suicide rate has remained relatively stable and so has the percentage of suicides involving guns.
Gun-control advocates like Christopher Scanlan, who wrote the article "Guns in the Home Contribute to Teen Suicide," believe that gun-control advocates haven’t exaggerated the extent of teen suicides by firearms. Scanlan contends, "The easy availability of guns contributes to the high rate of teen suicide" (p. 51). The main argument of Scanlan and the gun-control advocates is that the incidence of teenagers killing themselves with firearms has increased dramatically, while the rate of suicides by other means has remained the same.
False Statistics?
Another issue for analysis is Kopel’s belief that gun-control advocates frequently use false statistics in their arguments. Kopel critiques the advocates when for citing false statistics to justify their sense of the matter. For example, in 1989, according to Kopel, the American Academy of Pediatrics told a Congressional committee that "every three hours, a teenager commits suicide with a handgun." However, as Kopel points out, this figure is only valid if one counts all the suicides as handgun suicides, or if one calls every person under 25 a teenager. In addition, Kopel (1989) insists, "Gun-control supporters simply assume that fewer firearms would mean fewer suicides" (p. 57). Kopel can see the fact that if guns were less available, maybe suicide would decline. However, he insists that this is not inferable from the evidence.
However, Gun-control advocates do not believe they use false statistics in their arguments. In a nation where half the homes contain at least one firearm, guns and youth are a fatal combination that annually kills more than 1,400 American youths between the ages of ten and nineteen. This is one youth gun suicide every six hours. By restricting the access of teenagers to guns, suicides could be reduced by twenty percent. Twenty percent is nearly 300 teenagers saved per year. Teen suicide rates have quadrupled since 1950, and according to Scanlan, a leading panel of firearm researchers concluded that the increase was fueled by rapid growth in gun suicides. Another twist to the situation is that guns also put at risk large numbers of young people who consider suicide. According to Scanlan, a 1990 nationwide federal health survey of high school students found that more than one in four young people had thought seriously about attempting suicide. Scanlan simply states, "Keeping guns out of the reach of children saves lives" (p. 52).
Gun Control Useless?
A third issue for analysis is that Kopel firmly believes gun-control laws have no effect. He backs this strong statement with the help of Gary Kleck (1998), a criminologist at Florida State University. As was stated earlier in this paper, Kleck analyzed suicide rates and gun laws in every American city with a population over 100,000. He took into account all the factors that might affect suicide, such as race, religion, economic situations, and nineteen different gun-control laws. The result was that Kleck found no evidence that any of the gun-control laws had a statistical effect on suicide rates. Kleck pointed out, "People who had decided to kill themselves simply substituted other, equally lethal methods" (p. 57). According to Kopel, it appears That data from other countries support Kleck’s conclusion. An example is Great Britain. There, gun control laws are much stricter than in the United States; however, teenage suicide rose sharply during the late 1970’s and early 1980’s.
Teen suicides often go unnoticed in the national debate over firearm violence and gun control. According to Scanlan, in a nationwide survey of youth suicide prevention programs, none reported a major effort to limit gun access. Instead, government resources are being targeted at other problems such as violence against women, homicides, and violence against young people. However, says Scanlan, one hopeful sign has sprung up in the last couple of years. In 1993, the American Association of Suicidology voted to organize a workshop to bring together health advocates and gun enthusiasts to seek common ground on the issue of reducing access to firearms to our youth in society. According to Scanlan, National Rifle Association Research Coordinator Paul Blackman (1998) declared, "Sounds good to me. We’re here and waiting" (Scanlan, p. 53). The National Rifle Association is very skeptical, noting that the suicidology group sides with gun control advocates in favoring laws that restrict gun access.
Myths or Facts?
A final point of analysis is of how Kopel is fed up with gun-control advocates using factoids to try and support their arguments. For example, according to Kopel, the Washington Post (1998) stated, "Teenagers in homes with guns are 76 times more likely to kill themselves than teenagers living in homes without guns" (p. 58). Kopel insists that this is how myths supporting gun control are started. Kopel says, "Given the lack of evidence that gun control reduced suicide, anti-gun activists have to resort to factoids to prove their case" (p. 58).
Scanlan and other gun-control advocates believe they simply state the cold, hard facts about the teen suicide problem. Gun-control advocates around the country resort to studies certifying that the increase of guns coincides with a rise in firearm suicides. For example, says Scanlan, a 1991 study in western Pennsylvania found that the risk of youth suicide increased when guns were present in the home, no matter how carefully they were stored. Unfortunately, says Scanlan, the largest increase has been among the young, typically a group that is looking for quick solutions to life’s difficulties. Scanlan stresses, "Suicide among all ages remain one of the nation’s most enduring public health problems" (p. 54). He adds, "Without ready access to guns, many youth suicides might remain suicide attempts."
Conclusion
This paper has analyzed the article "The Number of Gun-Related Teen Suicides is Exaggerated" by David B. Kopel. Kopel insists gun-control laws have no effect on teenage suicide rates, and he believes that removing firearms from the home would not reduce the rate of teen suicide. Kopel insists that gun control advocates state false statistics, use untrue factoids, and believe falsely that gun-control laws have an effect on teenage suicides. Even though Kopel agrees in theory with gun-control advocates’ that "fewer guns equal fewer teenage suicides," he states, "The evidence is not there to simply say fewer guns equal fewer teenage suicides" (p. 57). However, after analyzing Kopel’s essay, it is reasonable to suggest that suicide should be looked upon more as a whole. Perhaps instead of just concentrating on gun-related suicides, Kopel and gun-control advocates such as Scanlan should be focusing on suicide in general, for perhaps the blame for youth suicide by guns can’t be laid just on gun control or its lack, but on society as a whole.
|
|
SPECIAL NOTES: This is a short analysis of a social issue using
research. Citation and documentation are in MLA style. The bibliography at the end would, in a normal manuscript, start
on a separate page. Inver Hills College Blonde
Stereotypes by Samantha
Freund Introduction It
is generally recognized that being the object of prejudice can lead to
damage to a person’s self-esteem. Blondes
are a large population of people who are humiliated by such
prejudice—especially young, blonde children.
They are made to feel they should act dumb and ditzy.
How does such prejudice occur? This
paper analyzes how blondes have been portrayed as apathetic airheads by
discussing typical blonde jokes, blonde celebrity faux pas on national
television, and the use of the degrading phrase “the blonde moment.” Background
Very little is known about the origin of blonde hair.
According to Joanna Pitman, author of On
Blondes: Recent
excavations in Pitman
adds that “studies dried up after World War Two, partly because of the
association of blonde hair with the Nazis and the Aryan race and partly
because of a perceived triviality” (6).
When someone is referring to nineteen-year-old, bleached blonde women
as airheads, that person may be participating in what once were racial and
political stereotypes. The
Blonde Joke The
stereotype in particular of blondes being ditzy and dense is most widely
fueled by the “blonde joke.” Everyone
has heard the dim-witted jokes of blondes' lack of intelligence. Here is one
example from an unknown source. A blonde and brunette were watching the 6 o'clock news at the local coffee
shop to catch up on the latest event in their city of San Francisco.
The news was about a man ready to jump off a bridge. The brunette turned to
the blonde and said, "I bet you $50 the man is going to jump.” "The
blonde replied, "Okay you're on." As
they watched, sure enough, the man jumped, and the blonde gave the brunette
$50. The brunette said, "I
can't accept this money. I watched the "No,
you have to take it," said the blonde. "I watched the This
is typical of blonde jokes where
one person’s intelligence is measured against another.
In every case, the non-blonde person will inevitably prove to be the
smarter of the pair. Another
example, from the Visca Corporation, involves a blonde telling her doctor of
a recurring nightmare she has had for a few days: Doctor:
“What was your dream about?” Blonde:
“I was being chased by a vampire!” Doctor:
“So what is the scenery like?” Blonde:
“I was running in a hallway.” Doctor:
“Then what happened?” Blonde:
“Well that’s the weird thing.
In every single dream, the same thing happens.
I always come to this door, but I can’t open it.
I keep pushing the door, but it won’t budge!” Doctor:
“Does the door have any letters on it?” Blonde:
“Yes it does.” Doctor:
“And what do these letters spell?” Blonde:
“They say ‘P-U-L-L.’” It
would be possible to promote a more widespread use of the brunette and
redhead joke. In this way people
could spread such demeaning humor throughout the spectrum of hair color,
making this kind of humor fairer. Jessica
Simpson as Stereotype: Celebrity Blondes From
Jean Harlow to Marilyn Monroe, For
example, it is publicly recognized that Jessica Simpson is being portrayed
as the quintessential “ditzy blonde” on her show Newlyweds because this portrayal increases ratings.
Her frequent mishaps have now become the foundation of ads for Pizza
Hut’s Buffalo Wings and for Eclipse Liquid-Ice Mints.
Her younger sister, Ashley, a brunette, is seen on TV explaining that
buffalo wings are “actually chicken,” and can also be seen explaining to
Jessica the complexities of Liquid-Ice Mints.
Networks may allow certain moments like that, but it would be both
fairer and more realistic to provide a greater balance between ignorance and
intellect. The
“Blonde Moment” The
phrase “blonde moment” has become one of the most widespread excuses for
having a brain lapse. People
whose hair is naturally blonde seem to have noticeably fewer “blonde
moments” than do bottle blondes and those with blonde highlights.
How did blondeness and stupidity become entwined?
One possible reason, according to Pitman, is that in “Paris in
1775, a beautiful courtesan named Mademoiselle Rosalie Duthé acquired the
dubious honor of becoming the first officially recorded dumb blonde (sic)”
(129). Her actions, as well as
her dyed “yellow” hair, became correlated with stupidity.
It seems as if people dye their hair blonde just to have something on
which to blame their lack of intelligence.
Pitman adds that even in the past, “those described as having a
‘white head,’ meaning heavily bleached blonde, marked themselves as
women of ‘not very serious intentions’” (31-32). Some
women even color their hair specifically to gain the ditzy blonde
stereotype. Pitman states that
around 1913, “blonde hair, long the racial ideal cherished by
anthropologists, eugenicists, sexologists, assorted cranks and their growing
audiences, was breaking out into fashionable reality” (180).
According to Pitman, peroxide bleach kits were just coming out on the
market, and women wanted to dye their hair for the sake of beauty and
sensuality. Not much has changed
in today’s fashions. For
example, a senior at As
a result, fake blondes are giving natural blondes a bad reputation, keeping
the natural blondes from being taken seriously or considered smart.
Whenever a natural blonde has a momentary slip of mind and cannot
think of a word, her friends will automatically ask her if she is “having
a blonde moment.” In fact,
when the Conclusion There
is unfair discrimination against blondes based solely on their hair color.
Undignified stereotypes have made it difficult for blondes to be
taken seriously. From Aphrodite
and Venus to Gwen Stefani and Madonna, blondes have been portrayed in a
light that makes them seem simple and brainless, which is not the case.
If society were to create equality among blondes, brunettes, and
redheads and do away with the “dumb blonde” stereotype, lightheadedness
could become just a color—not a state of mind. Works
Cited Author
Unknown. MyFunPortal.com.
“A Blonde’s Dream.” Joke.
1999-2003. “Buffalo
Wings.” Newlyweds:
Nick and Jessica. Dir.
Matt Anderson and Katherine Brooks. Pitman,
Joanna. On Blondes.
Visca
Corporation. “ www.lotsofjokes.com/cat_289.htm>.
Sample
Three: Short Analysis of a Social Issue Using Research
Eng 1108, Writing & Research
Analysis
© 2004 by Samantha Freund
Sample Four:
Researched Comparison/Contrast
SPECIAL NOTES: This is a comparison/contrast paper requiring research. It uses MLA style. The bibliography at the end would, in a normal manuscript, start on a separate page.
Inver Hills College
Hum 1110, Humanities I
Comparison/Contrast
© 2001 by Melanie Pelzel
A Comparison and
Contrast of Three Ancient Roman Philosophies
by
Melanie Pelzel
Introduction
This paper compares and contrasts three different views of philosophy of Roman times: Epicureanism, Stoicism, and Neoplatonism. These three philosophies were created out of a need for explanations about the meaning of life. According to Lamm, "Epicureanism and Stoicism, two eminent Athenian schools of philosophy of the third century BC, developed ethical systems that could help individuals feel more secure in an unstable and hostile world. Materialistic and practical, both philosophies suited thoughtful, educated Romans who chose to confront the problems of living an ethical life in a society plagued by dissension, vice, and corruption" (241).
It was the era that sprouted such philosophies. According to Shapiro, “The moral and emotional conditions in the first true ‘Age of Anxiety’ suffered in the western world—the Hellenistic Age—called forth and nourished three great philosophical responses: Epicureanism, Stoicism, and Neoplatonism” (1).
Purpose in Life
This section will compare and contrast the three philosophies regarding the question "What is one's purpose in life?" In Epicureanism, securing tranquility is the answer. The followers of this particular philosophy also believed the highest good in one's life is secure and lasting pleasure. According to Lamm, “Epicurus considered pleasure the ultimate good and adhered, with remarkable consistency, to the consequences of this view” (241). The only way a person could achieve tranquility and pleasure is, as De Lacy says, "through the philosopher. Intelligent choice is also needed, and practical wisdom is more to be prized than philosophy itself. Practical wisdom measures pleasures against pains, accepting pains that lead to greater pleasures and rejecting pleasures that lead to greater pains. It counts the traditional virtues (justice, temperance, and courage) among the means for attaining the pleasant life; they have no other justification" (4).
The followers of Epicureanism also felt that if a person were full of fear and anxiety, he or she would be hindered in achieving her purpose in life. Religion and the dread of death were viewed as the two great sources of fear for mankind. To rid mankind of these fears, De Lacy says, "Epicurus stated that peace of mind is achieved when the study of natural philosophy has removed all fear of the gods, when death is recognized to be merely the limit of experience and therefore irrelevant to the quality of experience, and when the gratification of desires that go beyond what is necessary and natural is seen to result in greater pains than pleasure" (4).
This brings up an interesting point, one that should be addressed. Epicureanism has been given the reputation of saying that sensual pleasures are the highest good and this is what a person should strive for. This view is actually mistaken. According to Burkhardt, “Intense bodily pleasure has consequences which are painful. In the long run, therefore, the highest good lies not in bodily pleasure but in the maximum of equilibrium or absence of pain” (272). The highest good is not in complete bodily pleasure, but in creating a total balance between pleasure and pain.
How do the Stoics answer the proposed question "What is one’s purpose in life?" They viewed purpose in life as the pursuit of virtue. According to Lamm, “It was seen that virtue was the sole good in an individual’s life; health, happiness, possessions are of no account. Because virtue resides in will power, everything good or bad in a person’s life depends entirely on that person” (242). Lamm goes on to say, “Virtue is seen as a detached calm, and one must guard himself from allowing others from interfering with this calm. One can finally achieve freedom by freeing oneself from all nonimportant desires” (242). We can now see that Stoicism and Epicureanism have a common thread: to achieve ones purpose in life, she must look within. Clark expands on this idea by saying, “to desire the impossible is irrational; and we should concern ourselves only with what is in our power—not wealth, pleasure, or reputation, but our inward reaction to the circumstances of life” (539).
The Stoics’ also wished to abolish passions, which were thought of as a mental disturbance. According to Sandbach, “The passions came in four generic kinds: fear, lust, mental pain, and mental pleasure” (60). A person who truly followed the Stoic philosophy tried to achieve a detached calm in any situation. This person could have lost his wife and children in a fire, but would take care not to let it disrupt his calm. He would try to view such a circumstance as of no account to him. If he did let it distract him, then he would worry that he was jeopardizing his ultimate goal of achieving virtue.
Last is the Neoplatonic view of one’s purpose in life. This philosophy is somewhat different from Epicureanism and Stoicism. According to Lamm, “The main idea of one’s life is to approach as near as possible to an understanding of reality while on earth so that, upon death, one is fit to enter the City of Good and contemplate the True Reality” (243). In Neoplatonism, there is the belief that nothing exists in its pure form. Pure form is seen as impossible to experience it in this life. According to Sweeney, “Neoplatonism tends, then, to put little emphasis on the material universe and reuses all value to the unique, distinguishing characteristics of an individual human person; for Plotinus these are unreal and unworthy accretion and must be put aside when one attains the One” (297). The idea then, is to live this life as ideally as one would live after death. By doing this, a person is more prepared when faced with the True Reality.
God
This section will compare and contrast the three philosophies regarding the question "Is there a God?" De Lacy states, “Epicurus preferred the view, like all other atomic compounds, men have come into being when the necessary conditions have been met. They have no creator and no destiny” (4). It was his belief then that no God did, in fact, exist. But Epicurus was influenced by society's belief at that time that there was a multitude of gods. Even though he himself believed that there was no creator, he devised a way to explain the possibility of the existence of these gods. According to Armstrong, “The gods live in the gaps between the universes. They are peculiar atomic structures, immortal in that the flow of atoms into them exactly balances the outflow” (505). Armstrong explains this state as follows: “Nothing exists but atoms and the empty space in which they endlessly move. Universes, including our own, and all in them are just chance concatenations or chains of atoms, which are always coming into existence and being dissolved infinite space” (505). To compromise his own view with society's, Epicurus further stated that the gods have no power over mortals and do not interfere in our lives or affairs.
In Stoicism there was a belief in God. According to Hallie, “The Stoics defined God as a rational spirit having itself no shape but making itself into all things” (21). Hallie also states, “ he key words in the Stoic vocabulary are all basically synonymous: God, Zeus, creative fire, ether, the word (logos), reason of the world, soul of the world, law of nature, providence, destiny, and order. The Stoics were monists. There is no qualitative difference between God and the rest of the universe” (21). In their view then, God is made up of everything; without Him nothing would exist.
Neoplatonists supported belief in a multitude of gods. However, according to Shapiro, “the gods have no power over the universes. They must exist because humans believe in them, but there is no need to fear them. Philosophers can derive peace and joy from contemplating the ideal existence of gods” (334). Therefore, even in their existence, they remain completely separate from mortals. There is a point that does need to be clarified, though. In Neoplatonism there is often the use of the words "The One." This has led many to mistakenly interpret this philosophy as arguing for the existence of God or a Creator. However, according to Dillon, “The One can be defined as a principal superior to Intellect and being, total, unitary and simple” (95). Another way of defining The One is, according to Sweeney, as follows: “The One is cause and final goal that unifies us and our love terminates in it. No one knows for sure what The One is, but it’s beyond being, knowledge, and language” (297). Therefore, The One does not represent the idea of God, but in fact an idea in itself.
Soul
This section will compare and contrast the three philosophies regarding the question "Is there a soul?" In Epicureanism there was the belief in a soul, but it was not seen as living forever. In order to have a clearer picture of this, it is necessary to understand how this philosophy viewed the workings of the body. According to De Lacy, “The human organism is composed of atoms undergoing characteristic patterns of change. Body and soul are interdependent; neither can survive without the other. The soul’s atoms are of four kinds. Three are the same as the atoms that constitute air, wind, and heat; the fourth, the smallest and most mobile, is sui genesis and nameless” (4). Thus it is that the soul is intertwined with the body’s functions, and has no purpose once the body dies. In this regard, Epicureanism saw religion and the concept of eternal life as a threat. According to Lamm, “Religion was not a consolation but a threa [to Epicureans]; it was a supernatural interference with nature and a source of terror because immortality denied release from pain. Death was both extinction and liberation” (241).
Stoics also believed in a soul. They used the word pneuma, which is "breath" or "seed." Pneuma is what we now consider the soul in modern terms. According to Reesor, “The Romans considered the pneuma to be a tensional motion within each entity, a stretching or tightness responsible for the entity’s coherence” (735). Another interpretation of the Stoic's understanding of soul is explained by Clark. He says, “According to a biological analogy that was proposed, the particular things of the world are governed in their emergence and development by the inherent power of seed—sparks, as it were—of the divine reason. The underlying substance of the world, this divine reason, is an intelligent fire that directs all events” (539). Without this pneuma, soul, or fire, nothing would exist.
Neoplatonism also expresses the view that humans have souls. They also believed that the soul continues on after the body dies. Lamm says, “The goal [in Neoplatonism] is to approach as near as possible to an understanding of reality while on earth so that, upon death, one is fit to enter the City of Good and contemplate the True Reality” (243). This illustrates the Neoplatonic view that there is a life after death, which--in this philosophy--is dearly embraced because it frees the soul for better things. Concerning this, Shapiro says, “Plotinus expresses contempt for all that is of sense, blames the commerce of soul with body as enchainment, an entombment, and upholds as a great truth the saying of the mysteries that the soul is here a prisoner” (280).
There is a point that needs clarification, though. Many have confused the use of the word Soul in Neoplatonism. According to Dillon, "The Soul is regarded as a level that generates time, and receives the forms into itself as reason principles (logoi). Our physical, three-dimensional world is the result of the lower aspect of the Soul (nature) projecting itself upon a kind of negative field of force (matter). Matter has no positive existence but is simply the receptacle for the unfolding of the Soul in its lowest aspect, which project three-dimensional space" (95). Therefore, the use of Soul in Neoplatonism refers to one of the levels of the universe, and not to what resides inside humans.
Conclusion
As we can see, these three philosophies share some common threads of thought, and greatly diverge on others. Though modern technology has proven some of the ideas that held these structures together as incorrect, some we still have yet to disprove. As Hallie says, “Stoics compared their logic to the wall, their physics to the tree, and their ethics to the fruit of a fertile field” (21). This passage holds very true; many wonderful things and ideas have sprouted out of these three philosophies, and many more will surely follow.
Works Cited
Armstrong, Hilary. “Epicureanism.” Encyclopedia Americana. 1998.
Burkhardt, Fredrick. “Epicureanism.” Collier’s Encyclopedia. 1996.
Clark, Gordon H. “Stoicism.” Collier’s Encyclopedia. 1996.
De Lacy, P.H. “Epicureanism.” Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 1967.
Dillon, J.M. “Neoplatonism.” Encyclopedia Americana. 1998.
Hallie, Phillip. “Stoicism.” Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 1967.
Lamm, Robert C. The Humanities in Western Culture. New York: Random, 1996.
Reesor, Margaret E. “Stoicism.” Encyclopedia Americana. 1998.
Sandbach, F.H. The Stoics. New York: Norton & Company, 1975.
Shapiro, Herman. Hellenistic Philosophy. New York: Random, 1965.
Sweeney, Leo. “Neoplatonism.” Collier’s Encyclopedia. 1996.
----------
|
Contents and Page Design © 2002-2004 by Richard Jewell. Nonprofit copying for education is allowed. Images courtesy of
Barry's Clip Art, Clip
Art Warehouse, The Clip Art
Universe, Clipart Collection,
Microsoft Clip
Art Gallery and Design Gallery
Live, School Discovery, and Web
Clip Art |
|
