Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byHollie Richard Modified over 9 years ago
1
UNIT 3 PHILOSOPHY SAC 2 CRITICAL COMPARISON Pointers for essay structure
2
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
3
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)
4
Approach B Aspect of the good life I support This aspect as presented by Person 1 Arguments Person 1 used to present this viewpoint Evaluation of these arguments Contrast this viewpoint with that of Person 2 Arguments Person 2 used to present this viewpoint Evaluation of these arguments Point of similarity between Person 2 and Person 1 (and/or own stance) Arguments used to present these viewpoints Evaluation 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-claim Evaluation of these arguments Reiteration of initial aspect of the good life I support
5
Approach C Person 1’s approach to the good life Arguments used to support this Contrast with Person 2’s approach to the good life Arguments used to support this Contrast with Person 3’s approach to the good life Arguments 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.
6
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
7
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
8
Expression You can use 1 st 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.
9
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
10
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
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.