According to philosophy department requirements, it must include term paper that shows the ability to explain and critique the views of other philosophers along with the ability to develop an original argument. This assignment aims to meet this requirement.
Chosen topic (I have chosen #2 Victor Frankl):
Compare and contrast Stoicism with a competing school of thought. Options include Academic Skepticism, Buddhism, Cynicism, or Epicureanism.
Examine the parallels with and/or influence of Stoicism on one contemporary thinker such as Albert Ellis, James Stockdale, or Viktor Frankl.
Choose one Stoic philosopher and compare and contrast his ideas/writings with those of Plato or Aristotle.
There are many ways to construct this paper. Your goal is to do so in a way that all grading criteria along with the paper guidelines are met. In general, you should focus on several fundamental ideas rather than an exhaustive analysis. That is, aim for depth rather than breadth. For example, if you chose 1, you should focus on a couple of fundamental points of agreement and disagreement rather than trying to cover them all.
Before starting, review the embedded Grading Rubric and follow the general guidelines below.
Paper Guidelines:
Your paper should have an original title.
Your paper must be typed with a 12-point font and double-spaced. Papers that typically earn an A for this assignment are around 2500 words or 10-12 pages. While there are no page limits per se, your goal is to fully meet the stated grading criteria, and some people can do so in 10 pages while others may need 13 or more.
Your file must be uploaded as a .doc, .docx , or .pdf file.
Proper citation methods, including a bibliography, based on an academically accepted citation methodology such as Chicago, APA, or MLA is expected (I have chosen MLA citation; in-text as well). It is important to follow your chosen methodology carefully. For example, make sure to cite all sources in the bibliography and use quotation marks to demarcate direct quotes to avoid issues involving academic dishonesty. This is important because all papers will be vetted with originality software, and the academic integrity policy, as stated in the syllabus, applies to all submitted work in this class.
Although using outside research and textual support is expected, do not rely excessively on the use of direct quotes. If the material is not in your words, you may not receive credit for it.
Organize your paper well, and use subtitles to designate the different sections.
Proofread your paper, and do not put full trust in the spell-check function. I strongly recommend having it professionally edited by a writing tutor, or at minimum, reading it aloud and then editing it yourself.
Your paper will be graded holistically. Papers with underdeveloped ideas or below the stated word counts may be subject to loss of points in all criteria. Carefully review the below rubric for the requirement for full points.
Papers not written on one of the above-assigned prompts will earn 0 points.
Please make sure that the paper is easy to read/understand without fancy words that are hard to understand. This is a philosophy paper so the focus is in the strenght of arguments and argumentation rigor. Only use the in-text citation after the sentence that has been paraphrased/summarized.
Rubric
Paper
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeClear thesis statement that connects explicitly to one of the given options
4 to >0.0 pts
Full Marks
0 pts
No Marks
4 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRelevant, key ideas of both schools of thought/philosophers are fully and accurately explained and supported with textual evidence, and the discussion accurately explains and fairly critiques both views.
12 to >0.0 pts
Full Marks
0 pts
No Marks
12 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDevelopment of an original argument that defends the thesis; the argument is supported with good reasons and textual evidence; the argument avoids informal fallacies and other errors in reasoning.
14 to >0.0 pts
Full Marks
0 pts
No Marks
14 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePaper draws from the relevant assigned course content and from outside research to support the author’s positions. At least two scholarly outside sources such as journal articles and two primary readings are used in addition to the textbook.
8 to >0.0 pts
Full Marks
0 pts
No Marks
8 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeProper spelling, grammar, organization (use of subtitles/sections), and citation methods
7 to >0.0 pts
Full Marks
0 pts
No Marks
7 pts
Total Points: 45
For references, as stated above it’s 2 outside journals such as journal articles, 2 primary readings, and 1 from text-book (William Irvine’s ‘A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy’). I have the book on Kindle. The book is basically an explanation of stoicism and how it applies to living. So ideas such as stoicism negative visualization, cardinal virtues, tricohonomy of control [alternative version of dichotomy of control], anger/death, indifferents to externals, etc.
Here are some sources for the 2 primary readings [choose 2]:
1. Most useful one: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/stoicism/
2. Seneca Letter 16, On Philosophy, the Guide of Life: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Moral_letters_to_Lucilius/Letter_16
3. Epictetus, Enchiridion [I will drop the pdf file, or you can use different source as long as it’s from the same Enchiridion letters].
For the 2 outside journals, you may choose your own. To be safe, peer-reviewed would be preferred.
Now here is how I want the thesis and outline to be:
Thesis Statement:
“Although both Stoicism and Viktor Frankl’s logotherapy offer profound insights into the human capacity to find meaning and resilience in the face of suffering, Frankl’s emphasis on finding personal meaning in life’s challenges presents a more adaptable and psychologically supportive approach compared to Stoicism’s more rigid focus on virtue and detachment. This thesis explores how integrating Frankl’s personalized and dynamic conception of meaning with Stoic principles can offer a more holistic approach to modern existential crises, accommodating the subjective experiences of individuals while maintaining a philosophical stance that transcends situational adversities.”
Outline Based on the Thesis
Introduction
Introduction to Stoicism and Viktor Frankl’s Logotherapy: Overview of both philosophies with a focus on their treatment of suffering and human resilience.
Thesis Statement: Introduction of the thesis focusing on the comparison and integration of both philosophies.
Relevance and Significance: Briefly discuss the contemporary relevance of these philosophies in addressing modern existential issues.
Background and Philosophical Foundations
Stoicism: Discuss key Stoic beliefs—virtue as the sole good, emotional detachment, and acceptance of fate.
Viktor Frankl’s Logotherapy: Outline Frankl’s focus on existential analysis, finding meaning in suffering, and the personal quest for a fulfilling life.
You may include brief introduction of 3 pillars of stoicism [ethics, logic and physics] as part of the overall description of Stoicism. This sets the stage for later discussions and helps explain why Stoicism sees the world and human behavior in certain ways.
Comparative Analysis of Philosophies
Handling of Suffering: Compare Stoic indifference to suffering with Frankl’s embrace of suffering as a pathway to finding meaning.
Concept of Freedom and Choice: Analyze Stoic internal freedom versus Frankl’s emphasis on spiritual freedom and personal choice even in dire circumstances.
Role of Meaning and Virtue: Discuss how both philosophies see meaning and virtue as central, yet approach them differently.
Use Stoic logic [one of the 3 Stoic pillars] to discuss how a rational, structured approach to thinking might complement or challenge Frankl’s more intuitive and personal approach to finding meaning.
Integrate Stoic physics to provide a cosmic or natural context for understanding human suffering and meaning, possibly enhancing Frankl’s existential perspective.
Integration and Synergy
Potential for Integration: Explore how elements of Stoicism can be integrated with Frankl’s logotherapy to enhance resilience and personal growth.
Addressing Modern Challenges: Discuss how a combined approach can address weaknesses in each philosophy, particularly in dealing with severe psychological conditions and modern existential vacuums.
Discuss potential synergies, suggesting how Stoic ethics, logic and physics could theoretically enrich or provide a robust backbone to Frankl’s focus on personal meaning, especially in forming a more universally applicable philosophical stance that still respects individual differences.
Evaluation of Strengths and Weaknesses
Stoicism’s Strengths and Weaknesses: Evaluate Stoicism’s robustness in fostering resilience against external changes but its potential emotional restrictiveness.
Frankl’s Strengths and Weaknesses: Assess the broad applicability and deep psychological insight of Frankl’s theories, and their occasional reliance on an inherent ability to find meaning which may not be accessible to all. (Look in to my notes below to know what to integrate
Strengths
Stoicism:
Resilience Against External Changes: Stoicism’s emphasis on internal control helps individuals maintain mental stability despite external circumstances.
Universal Ethical Framework: Stoicism provides clear, normative guidance on virtue, which can apply universally, promoting a consistent ethical lifestyle.
Viktor Frankl’s Logotherapy:
Personal Relevance and Flexibility: Frankl’s focus on individual meaning-making processes makes his approach highly adaptable and personally relevant.
Psychological Depth and Compassion: Logotherapy acknowledges the full range of human emotional experiences, offering a compassionate framework that respects personal suffering and recovery.
Weaknesses
Stoicism:
Limited Acknowledgment of Mental Health Challenges: Stoicism’s emphasis on rational control may not fully account for mental illnesses that impair cognitive and emotional functions.
Perceived Emotional Detachment: The Stoic ideal of emotional indifference might be misconstrued as a lack of empathy, potentially alienating those who struggle with emotional expression.
Viktor Frankl’s Logotherapy:
Challenges in Severe Mental Illness: While flexible, logotherapy may struggle to engage effectively with individuals whose mental illness severely distorts their capacity to find or create meaning.
Potential for Moral Relativism: The emphasis on personal meaning might lead to a lack of clear, normative ethical guidance, which could be problematic in guiding actions within a broader social context.
Conclusion
Synthesis of Ideas: Reaffirm how the integrated approach can offer a nuanced framework for understanding and addressing human suffering and the search for meaning.
Implications for Philosophy and Psychology: Consider the implications of this synthesis for therapeutic practices and philosophical discourse.
Future Directions: Suggest areas for further research and application in therapy and personal development.
Finally here are some notes that I built upon after reading/watching this:
Some of the examples and quotations may help for the paper.
“Victor Frankl philosophy: finding something to live or due transforms a meaningless/hopeless existence into a life worth living regardless of circumstances.
said:
It’s not pleasure, success or power that drives people. It’s finding something a purpose a meaning to live or even die for.
Similar reasons giving up on life: lack of purpose hopelessness, meaninglessness.
Trapped in Existential vacuum: awaits despair. Pursuits like power, money, status are ways to cope with existential vacuum ; consequences of lack of meaning. These doesn’t fill existential emptiness.
Victor saw in concentration camps two types of people: those who gave up in life (more prone to illness and death) and those didn’t (more likely to survive— sense of meaning and discovery purpose in unbearable living conditions).
The people who gave up says there’s nothing to expect from life— devoid of meaning.
This is nihilism. Victor Frankl philosophy is an antidote to this and also suffering; “in some way, suffering ceases to be suffering at the moment it finds a meaning.”
Perhaps they are longing for externals they had before or pursue: materialism, wealth, fame, love, etc.
Stoicism can also help by showing that the externals are indifferents and what’s truly important and meaningful is our virtue.
Depending our happiness in eternals what we cannot control can be devastating.
Victor mentioned about a Prisoner that dreamt about a date that concentration camp would end but it didn’t come true; he was disappointed, ill and died. Stoicism would say that it is irrational to dwell into hope that is outside of control based on unwarranted thoughts not according to nature (make belief). Not good virtue as argument.
Concentration camps: the assumption is that it eliminate person’s freedom to choose thereby stripping them away from meaning and purpose.
Both Stoicism and Victor Frankl would disagree because:
A. Stoicism would say that is not the case— we have full control of our internals: beliefs, judgment, etc.
B. Frankl would say that we are able to preserve “vestige of spiritual freedom and of “independence of mind” even in those terrible conditions of mental/physical stress. We have always a choice. Quotation: “we who lived in concentration camps…everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms— to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way. “ Sadistic SS guards: no respect to human life, prisoners who gave up in life, Guards who help prisoners… those found meaning in deepest of suffering or any circumstances: were all responsible for their life choices. Therefore regardless if how terrible life is, one can still decide what path/direction. Do we choose to betray for a better life/ change ideologies or A play thing to circumstances?
Spiritual freedom can’t be taken away which makes life meaningful and purposeful. Quote “the way in which a man accept fate… takes up his cross, gives him ample opportunity to add deeper meaning to his life. “
<~~~ accepting fate like stoicism Fatalistic view. But the meaning part adds nuanced and root to live because without this, what’s the point of pursuing stoicism virtue as only good when there is no will to live? So it’s more fundamental. Frankl version is also more accepting to the subjectivity of each person’s meaning whereas stoicism physics, logic and ethics seem to uphold a standard or clearer direction mainly because Ethics is normative (what we ought to do).
Weaknesses: exceptions; severe chronic mental illness uncontrollable brain chemical that affects a person’s internals: rationality—judgment— belief (stoicism). . Perhaps attitude as well (frankl).
WHY meaning?
Frankl believes that happiness cannot be pursued but ensued or it can only be a byproduct of one’s pursuit of meaning.
“One must have a reason to be happy. Once the reason us found he becomes happy automatically. A human being isn’t in the pursuit if happiness but rather in search of a reason to become happy… through actualizing the potential meaning inherent&dormant in a given situation”
So just like success must also ensue and not pursued because it’s a byproduct or unintended side effect of one’s dedication to a more significant cause.
So the more a person care about success the LESS we can focus on our cause and LESS likely success to occur. However; if we dedicate to a purpose & DONT care about success, the more likely it happens as byproduct in long run.
Meaning is at the root of happiness/success while lack of meaning is at the heart if pleasure, money, fame, power.
How meaning?
No one fits all: Like mentioned before Frankl meaning of life depends on the person, moment, and circumstances.
The best meaning of life depends on the given situation.
Can only discover purpose by interacting w the world & see what it needs
3 ways one find meaning:
1. Creating a work or doing a deed.
2. By experiencing something (goodness, truth, beauty, nature, culture) or encountering someone (uniqueness, love).
3. By the attitude we take toward unavoidable suffering.
“When we are no longer able to change a situation, we are challenge to change ourselves.”"
