Original Prompt:
What place do Stoics and Buddhists leave for relationships in their ethics, and what objections could you raise to their view?
A complete paper must include a title, a question and a thesis statement, a structured argument, and at least three academic references drawn from course materials. (Outside referances should also be used) At least two distinct ethical theories must be discussed and objections to each must be considered.
My Paper that needs work is titled : Updated Buddihst Stoics
(The other upload are the referances i have used)
Feedback I recieved on how to make the paper better:
Could you use this info below to make some edits Please?
The intro and first paragraph are very strong and intriguing. I liked that give you some background history about both Buddhism and Stoicism. The way you start your second paragraph is worded is a bit confusing. You make good points but the flow is lost. Throughout this paper you make many great points. I feel each subtitle is useful and adds to your essay.
Anonymous User, Mar 28 at 8:38pm
‘A philosopher named Nassim Taleb once said that a stoic is a Buddhist with an attitude. This simply means that both Stoicism and Buddhism are closely related, but Buddhism is the updated version of Stoicism.’ You can get rid of this. It’s not very relevant and it’s partly inaccurate. What does attitude mean? Buddhism is also more ancient than stoicism. Etc. Your intro needs to lead to your thesis statement with more focus and specificity. You can’t just restate the original question. You need to tell your reader what you’re going to do. It’s not clear what the section on virtue and stoicism is doing here. It doesn’t appear to be answering the question at hand one way or another. This is not terribly important but if you can try to clean up the citations. Have a uniform format and provide complete citations of course materials.
Anonymous User, Mar 28 at 9:14pm
Overall this is encouraging. Next steps: work on the structure. Make it clear, coherent and purposeful. Only make claims that you can support with evidence or that follow from an argument. And importantly make the significance of the issue salient: after all it’s counterintuitive that relationships are sources of suffering. As for stoicism, is it the relationships themselves that cause our unhappiness or our dependence on the aspects of them that we cannot control?
