Fluent Essays

Position Paper 1. (Ethics and Knowledge) InstructionsFor the assignment, I would like you to take a position on one (or two) of the assigned readings for the first section of the course (Ethics and Knowledge), and write a well argued, critical essay of around 1000 to 1200 words (12 point font, in Times New Roman, 1.5 spacing, with a Works Cited section at the end).For your paper, you are required to take a position on one (or two) of the philosophers that we have examined so far in the course. What this means is that you can write your paper on one of the following philosophers:1. Plato (The Allegory of the Cave)2. Epicurus (Letter to Menoeceus)3. Kierkegaard (Fear and Trembling)Or, you can compare two of these philosophers’ ethical theories:1. Plato and Epicurus2. Epicurus and Kierkegaard3. Kierkegaard and Plato   The main point of the assignment is that you take a position in your essay on the reading(s).From the texts that we have examined, clearly and accurately describe the ethical theories of the philosopher (or philosophers) that you have decided to write about.Also, tell me why you agree or disagree with the ethical theory(or theories) in question? (You may agree with some aspects of a philosopher’s ethics, but disagree with others. Or you may entirely agree or disagree with their main ethical theory).Also in your paper, argue for the applicability (or inapplicability) of the ethical theory (or theories) in the world today, and in our contemporary society.Above all, take a clear argumentative position, and make this clear in your essay.Suggested Questions and Topics:As mentioned in the assignment description, you are free to develop your own original topic for the essay, as it relates to the philosophers and the readings we have examined in this first part of the course.However, here are two suggested topics that may also help guide you with the assignment:1. (Plato and Epicurus)Both Plato and Epicurus write about the “good” and the “good life” in their writings, specifically in the Republic (380 BC), and Letter to Menoeceus (341-270 BC), respectively. How do these terms relate to each philosopher’s ethical theories? Also, how does each philosopher think we should live the most ethical life? How should we act? And what is the purpose of life for each philosopher? Are there any similarities or differences between them? And most importantly, do you agree or disagree with them?(Use examples from the text to support your arguments).2. (Kierkegaard and Plato)How do Kierkegaard’s and Plato’s ethical theories relate, if at all? What is the main aim of ethics in Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave” in the Republic (380 BC)? And also, what does Kierkegaard have to say about ethics in Fear and Trembling (1843)? What is the highest purpose in life for each philosopher? Are there any similarities or differences between the stories both philosophers recount? (The “Allegory of the Cave,” and the “Story of Abraham”). Most importantly, do you agree or disagree with each philosopher? And can you apply their ideas about ethics to your own life and the world today?   (Use examples from the text to support your arguments).LETTER TO MENOECEUS Epicurus Epicurus (c. 341-271) was born on the island of Samos of Athenian parents, and thus was an Athenian citizen. He eventually established a philosophical school outside of Athens, next to Plato’s academy, where he bought a house and garden. Along with Stoicism, Epicureanism became a dominant philosophical system during the Roman Empire. In his letter to Menoeceus, Epicurus offers a summary of his ethical system. Translated by Cyril Bailey (1926). [1] Let no one when young delay to study philosophy, nor when he is old grow weary of his study. For no one can come too early or too late to secure the health of his soul. And the man who says that the age for philosophy has either not yet come or has gone by is like the man who says that the age for happiness is not yet come to him, or has passed away. Wherefore both when young and old a man must study philosophy, that as he grows old he may be young in blessings through the grateful recollection of what has been, and that in youth he may be old as well, since he will know no fear of what is to come. We must then meditate on the things that make our happiness, seeing that when that is with us we have all, but when it is absent we do all to win it. [2] The things that I used unceasingly to commend to you, these do and practice, considering them to be the first princi- ples of the good life. First of all believe that god is a being immortal and blessed, even as the common idea of a god is engraved on men’s minds, and do not assign to him anything alien to his immortality or ill-suited to his blessedness: but believe about him everything that can uphold his blessedness and immortality. For gods there are, since the knowledge of them is by clear vision. But they are not such as the many believe them to be: for indeed they do not consistently repre- sent them as they believe them to be. And the impious man is not he who denies the gods of the many, but he who attaches to the gods the beliefs of the many. For the statements of the many about the gods are not conceptions derived from sensa- tion, but false suppositions, according to which the greatest misfortunes befall the wicked and the greatest blessings the good by the gift of the gods. For men being accustomed al- ways to their own virtues welcome those like themselves, but regard all that is not of their nature as alien. [3] Become accustomed to the belief that death is nothing to us. For all good and evil consists in sensation, but death is deprivation of sensation. And therefore a right under- standing that death is nothing to us makes the mortality of life enjoyable, not because it adds to it an infinite span of time, but because it takes away the craving for immortality. For there is nothing terrible in life for the man who has truly comprehended that there is nothing terrible in not living. So that the man speaks but idly who says that he fears death notFEAR AND TREMBLING REPETITION by Søren Kierkegaard Edited and Translated with Introduction and Notes by Howard V. Hong and Edna H. Hong PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY EXORDIUM1 [III 61] Once upon a time there was a man who as a child had heard that beautiful story of how God tempted [fristede]2 Abraham and of how Abraham withstood the temptation [Fristelsen], kept the faith, and, contrary to expectation, got a son a second time.3 When he grew older, he read the same story with even greater admiration, for life had fractured what had been united in the pious simplicity of the child. The older he became, the more often his thoughts turned to that story; his enthusiasm for it became greater and greater, and yet he could understand the story less and less. Finally, he forgot everything else because of it; his soul had but one wish, to see Abraham, but one longing, to have witnessed that event. His craving was not to see the beautiful regions of the East, not the earthly glory of the promised land, not that God-fearing couple whose old age God had blessed, not the venerable figure of the aged patriarch, not the vigorous adolescence God bestowed upon Isaac—the same thing could just as well have occurred on a barren heath. 4His craving was to go along on the three-day journey when Abraham rode with sorrow before him and Isaac beside him. His wish was to be present in that hour when Abraham raised his eyes and saw Mount Moriah in the distance, the hour when he left the asses behind and went up the mountain alone with Isaac—for what occupied him was not the beautiful tapestry of imagination but the shudder of the idea. That man was not a thinker.5 He did not feel any need to [III 62] go beyond faith; he thought that it must be supremely glorious to be remembered as its father, an enviable destiny to possess it, even if no one knew it. That man was not an exegetical scholar. He did not know Hebrew; if he had known Hebrew, he perhaps would easily have understood the story and Abraham. I.6 [III 63] “And God tempted [fristede]7 Abraham and said to him, take Isaac, your only son, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah and offer him there as a burnt offering on a mountain that I shall show you.”8 It was early in the morning when Abraham arose, had the asses saddled, and left his tent, taking Isaac with him, but Sarah watched them from the window as they went down the valley—until she could see them no longer.9 They rode in silence for three days. On the morning of the fourth day, Abraham said not a word but raised his eyes and saw Mount Moriah in the distance. He left the young servants behind and, taking Isaac’s hand, went up the mountain alone. But Abraham said to himself, “I will not hide from Isaac where this walk is taking him.” He stood still, he laid his hand on Isaac’s head in blessing, and Isaac kneeled to receive it. And Abraham’s face epitomized fatherliness;10 his gaze was gentle, his words admonishing. But I208 Book 7 SOCRATES’ NARRATION CONTINUES: SOCRATES: Next, then, compare the effect of education and that of the lack of it on our nature to an experience like this. Imagine human beings living in an underground, cavelike dwelling, with an entrance a long way up that is open to the light and as wide as the cave itself. They have been there since childhood, with their necks and legs fettered, so that they are fixed in the same place, able to see only in front of them, because their fet- ter prevents them from turning their heads around. Light is provided by a fire burning far above and behind them. Between the prisoners and the fire, there is an elevated road stretching. Imagine that along this road a low wall has been built—like the screen in front of people that is provided by pup- peteers, and above which they show their puppets. GLAUCON: I am imagining it. SOCRATES: Also imagine, then, that there are people alongside the wall carrying multifarious artifacts that project above it—statues of people and other animals, made of stone, wood, and every material. And as you would expect, some of the carriers are talking and some are silent. GLAUCON: It is a strange image you are describing, and strange prisoners. SOCRATES: They are like us. I mean, in the first place, do you think these prisoners have ever seen anything of themselves and one another besides the shadows that the fire casts on the wall of the cave in front of them? GLAUCON: How could they, if they have to keep their heads motionless throughout life? SOCRATES: What about the things carried along the wall? Isn’t the same true where they are concerned? GLAUCON: Of course. SOCRATES: And if they could engage in discussion with one another, don’t you think they would assume that the words they used applied to the things they see passing in front of them? GLAUCON: They would have to. SOCRATES: What if their prison also had an echo from the wall facing them? When one of the carriers passing along the wall spoke, do you think 514a 5 b 5 c 515a 5 b 5 Reeve-PlatoRepub-00Book Page 208 Wednesday, June 23, 2004 2:26 PM The Allegory of the Cave 209 they would believe that anything other than the shadow passing in front of them was speaking? GLAUCON: I do not, by Zeus. SOCRATES: All in all, then, what the prisoners would take for true reality is nothing other than the shadows of those artifacts. GLAUCON: That’s entirely inevitable. SOCRATES: Consider, then, what being released from their bonds and cured of their foolishness would naturally be like, if something like this should happen to them. When one was freed and suddenly compelled to stand up, turn his neck around, walk, and look up toward the light, he would be pained by doing all these things and be unable to see the things whose shadows he had seen before, because of the flashing lights. What do you think he would say if we told him that what he had seen before was silly nonsense, but that now—because he is a b