Introduction comparative dissertation
The final test of this second set of philosophy, which is valid for 40% of your session, consists of writing a comparative dissertation of about 800 words on a philosophical question related to the human being.
You will have to compare the thought of two philosophers on a philosophical question, and then position yourself personally in relation to this question based on the elements acquired in the comparison.
The purpose of this document is to provide you with the essential tools to carry out this test.
Formal structure of the comparative dissertation
(a) The subject brought: introduction announcing the question (b) The subject asked:
Wording of the question
Brief description of the thesis of the two authors
(c) The divided topic: announcement of the development plan
Presentation of the first thinker’s answer to the question
Presentation of the second thinker’s answer to the question
Important similarities between the two philosophers
Important differences between the two philosophers
The position taken
Critical appreciation of philosophers’ conceptions 2. Presentation of your personal position:
Reminder of the position of the two authors and your personal position
Opening the text to further reflection or deepening
The purpose of the report is to accurately set out the concepts and arguments presented by philosophers that can help you provide a reasoned answer to the philosophical question you ask yourself in your text.
In order to get off to a good start on your question, you must propose a problem, i.e. a presentation of the essential philosophical issues of your question. In other words, explain how you understand your question and why it is philosophically important.
The report itself is a paragraph presenting a reasoned reformulation of the philosopher’s thought on the topic under discussion. It consists in selecting and presenting the essential elements of each philosopher’s reflection on the question in such a way as to suggest a faithful reflection of their reflection. You will have to write two reporting paragraphs (one for each thinker).
To properly prepare your account of each philosopher, follow these steps to prepare your plan:
Step #1 : Identify the relevant parts of the philosopher’s thinking in relation to your question.
Step #2: Identify important concepts related to the philosophical issue of your work. Make sure you understand the philosopher’s definition of it.
Step #3: Locate the philosopher’s reasoning on the issue you’re concerned about, and make sure you understand the scope of each of these events.
Step #4: Synthesize the relevant concepts and arguments you have uncovered so that the philosopher’s answer to your question is felt. Do not hesitate to use the technical vocabulary of the philosopher you are presenting.
Comparative analysis consists of comparing the answers that each philosopher brings to the question that is the subject of your work in order to see what they have in common and what they differ in.
It is not a question of making a catalog of all the differences and similarities between the two authors! Instead, you should insist on meaningful points of comparison, which are important in relation to the question-theme of your work.
Comparative analysis must always remain focused on the philosophical problem that is the subject of the text: its ultimate objective is to feed the position on the issue (last part of the development).
Here are some questions you may ask yourself when establishing relevant points of comparison between two philosophers:
From the point of view of problematization :
Do the authors understand the philosophical problem in question in the same way? If not, what explains the difference in their understandings ?
Do they formulate the problem in the same way, using the same concepts?
Do they give equal importance to this problem in their thinking? If not, what explains why one philosopher attributes more/less importance to it than the other?
Do they see the same method of solving this problem?
If not, how do their methods differ?
From a conceptualization perspective:
Do the two philosophers share the definitions of the important concepts around which the problem turns? If not, what characterizes their respective definitions?
By what arguments do the authors manage to base their definitions of important concepts?
From the point of view of argumentation :
Do the authors share a common thesis, or do they tend to operate?
In the case of a common thesis, are the arguments put forward in support of the thesis the same? If not, what makes them different?
In the case of opposing theses, what exactly differentiates the theses of the two authors? What arguments support these different theses?
In the case of opposing theses, can we nevertheless observe similarities between these theses?
Is the style of argumentation of the two authors similar? If not, what characterizes them?
The position taken
The position consists in providing a reasoned answer to the philosophical problem that is the subject of your work based on the comparative analysis you have conducted between the two philosophers.
Critical appreciation of philosophers’ thinking : What do you think are the strengths and weaknesses of each conception? What elements could you agree with? What do you have reservations about? Develop your thinking around each philosopher by making sure to justify every judgment you make with an argument.
Taking your personal position: answer your question directly (thesis training ), and develop two (2) distinct arguments to support your position. These arguments may be directly inspired by or oppose the thinking of philosophers; but you must take them into account in your argument.
To make sure, follow one of three argumentative strategies:
Support the design of one of the two authors presented;
Refute the position of the two thinkers to make room for your own thesis
(which must then be different from theirs);
Concede certain elements established by philosophers and build your arguments about ideas that you find acceptable, interesting, etc., while explaining why you reject those you reject.
Do not hesitate to ask your teacher for the help of the preparation of your plan!
The following questions all deal with one or the other of the important issues in philosophical anthropology. Each is inspired by the work of at least one of the thinkers we have studied. These questions all represent fruitful themes that can be approached through several different philosophers.
Can you really know yourself? (Montaigne)
Can we learn to make better use of existence? (Montaigne)
Is the human being limited to his body? (Descartes)
Is the human being superior to other animals of nature? (Descartes)
Should we draw inspiration from the state of nature of the human being to ensure his future? (Rousseau)
Where do political inequalities between human beings come from? (Rousseau)
Are individuals determined by their belonging to a social class? (Marx)
Are today’s workers alienated by the capitalist mode of production? (Marx)
Is the meaning of life that of a will to power (will-live)? (Nietzsche)
Is Western civilization decadent? (Nietzsche)
Is the human being determined by his impulses? (Freud)
Is there an objective psychic normality in the human being? (Freud)
You are allowed to write your own question, but you must discuss it with the teacher and have it approved before you start your work.
Evaluation Grid – Comparative Dissertation (40%)
Performance criteria Insufficient Passable Ok Very well
0 – 6 – 12
15 – 18
21 – 24
27 – 30
1.1 Presentation of the main characteristics of the concepts: concepts, principles and presuppositions.
1.2 Appropriate use of key concepts
The student does not produce any satisfactory account of the philosophers’ thought.
It does not present the important concepts or arguments, or the elements presented are insufficient, inaccurate or too little detailed.
The student does not explain at all the answer given by each author to the proposed philosophical question.
The student makes no significant use of the con- cepts specific to each philosopher. His argument is thus weakened and unconvincing.
The student shall produce an account of the pen- sée of at least one (1) phi- losophe.
It presents some important con- cepts and arguments, but omits some, or does not give them the place that belongs to them in the context of the conception studied.
The student does not always explain the answer given by each author to the proposed philosophical question.
The student sometimes makes use of the concepts specific to each philosophy. This usage does not always lead to deepening the argument.
The student produces an account of the pen- sée of the two (2) philosophers he has chosen.
It presents the important concepts and arguments, giving everyone their rightful place in the design studied.
The student explains the answer given by each author to the proposed philosophical question .
The student makes use of the concepts specific to each philosopher. This use helps to deepen the argument.
The student produces a faithful and well-structured account of the philosophy of the two (2) philosophers he has chosen.
It presents very well the important concepts and arguments, giving everyone the place that belongs to him in the context of the design studied.
The student clearly explains the answer given by each author to the proposed philosophical question.
The student makes a relevant and coherent use of the concepts specific to each philosopher. This use contributes a lot to deepening the argument.
0 – 6 – 12
15 – 18
21 – 24
27 – 30
3.1 Presentation of the main similarities and differences between conceptions
3.3 Critical and reasoned position on a design
The student does not make any significant comparison between the two (2) chosen philosophies .
The points of comparison are irrelevant, or are insufficiently developed.
The differences and similarities are regularly inaccurate.
The student establishes a comparison between the two (2) philosophers chosen, but with difficulty.
The points of comparison are generally quite relevant to the problem, but some are of relevance .
The differences and similarities are generally accurate, but several present inaccuracies.
The student compares the pen- sée of the two (2) philosophers chosen.
The points of comparison are relevant to the problem.
The differences and similarities are correct; they correspond to the thinking of the philosophers concerned.
The student takes a stand on the ideas presented and
The student effectively compares the thinking of the two (2) chosen philosophers.
The points of comparison are perfectly relevant to the problem.
The differences and similarities are correct; they correspond perfectly to the thinking of the philosophers concerned.
The student does not take a position in the face of the ideas presented, or his position is confused or poorly supported.
The personal argument is not consistent with the comparison made, or does not take it into account at all. The student takes a position on the ideas presented, but he does not justify his thought, or his position is confused.
The student’s personal argument is generally consistent with the established comparison, but the student sometimes contradicts points or does not take them into account in his argument. pronounces on them in a critical way.
The student’s personal argumentation is consistent with the comparison and criticisms addressed to philosophers. The student takes a clear, relevant and nuanced position in the face of the ideas presented and pronounces on them in a critical way.
The student’s personal argument is in fact consistent with the comparison made and the criticisms addressed to the philosophers.
3.2 Recognition of the consequences for thought and action of the concepts examined.
0 – 6 – 12
The student does not answer the question directly. His thesis is confusing, or not at all relevant.
The student does not suggest any relevant and coherent argument in support of his thesis.
The student finds it very difficult to respect the rules of ra- tionality in the argument. His text contains a large number of reasonings and faulty definitions, several para- gisms and/or several so- phisms.
The text does not at all use the comparison of conceptions to draw the necessary consequences for thought and action.
15 – 18
The student answers the question with a thesis, but it is not entirely relevant or lacks clarity.
The student suggests one (1) relevant and co-hist argument in support of his thesis.
The student experiences certain difficulties in respecting the rules of rationality in argumentation. Its text contains faulty reasons and definitions, paralogisms and/or fallacies.
The text makes very little use of the comparison of concep- tions to draw the necessary conclusions for thought and action.
21 – 24
The student directly answers the question with a relevant thesis.
The student suggests two (2) distinct, relevant and coherent arguments in support of his thesis.
The student respects the rules of rationality in argumentation. His text contains almost no trace of paralogism or fallacy.
The text uses the comparison of conceptions to draw the necessary consequences for thought and action.
27 – 30
The student answers the question directly with a clear, relevant and adequately nuanced thesis.
The student suggests two (2) distinct, relevant and coherent arguments in support of his thesis. These arguments are perfectly sufficient to establish the conclusion.
The student strictly respects the rules of rationality in arguing. His text contains absolutely no trace of paralogism or fallacy.
The text makes very effective use of the comparison of conceptions to draw the necessary consequences for thought and action.
3.4 Writing an essay of at least 800 words.
0 – 2 – 4
The student produced an essay of less than 700 words.
The dissertation does not respect the imposed structure. Elements are missing
5 – 6
The student produced an essay of between 700 and 800 words.
The dissertation generally respects the form
7 – 8
The student produced an essay of at least 800 words.
9 – 10
The student produced an essay of at least 800 words.
or presented in the order, causing a lot of confusion.
The text does not end with a permanent opening.
imposed (introduction, development conclusion), but we can see some omissions.
The text concludes with an opening, but this lacks relevance.
The dissertation respects the imposed form (introduction, con- clusion development).
The text concludes with a relevant opening.
The dissertation perfectly respects the original form (introduction, development conclusion).
The text concludes with a relevant and rational opening.
The student demonstrates style and originality in his dissertation.
Philosophy : /100
Penalty in French: – /10
FINAL RESULT: /100
comparative dissertation comparative dissertation comparative dissertation comparative dissertation comparative dissertation comparative dissertation
Are you overwhelmed by your class schedule and need help completing this assignment? You deserve the best professional and plagiarism-free writing services. Allow us to take the weight off your shoulders by clicking this button.