homework

Final Essay: IAH 231A Ultimate Reality and the Meaning of Life

This final essay gives you the opportunity to assess various approaches to ultimate reality and the meaning of life that tie all the parts of this course together. Unlike your earlier review essay, this comprehensive essay requires you to focus on one particular thread that runs through the course. This essay also requires you to incorporate Buddhism into your overall assessment of the topic. Answer ONE of the questions given below in an essay of approximately 400-600 words. Try to be concise and clear. You will submit your answer to the submission box called “Comprehensive Essay Submission Box” in the folder on D2L called “Final Essay Material”. The essay is due Tuesday December 14 at 11:59 pm. Your file should be “.pdf” or “.doc” and NOT “.pages”. I urge you to write and submit this essay as soon as you have completed the online course materials on Buddhism. All submissions will be processed through Turnitin for honesty. • You must include your approach on ultimate reality and the meaning of life, and you must show where you agree or disagree with the other approaches you discuss, and why. • You must explain (not just mention) FIVE specific approaches from our class with AT

LEAST ONE from each of the three main parts of the course: Part II: Western monotheism

Part III: non-theistic western Part IV: Buddhism

The other two approaches may be from any part of the course at all including Part I (except for question “A”, which has its own unique distribution requirements). Note that Ivan Ilyich and Aristotle are from Part I. For reference see the “Module Schedule 2021” document in this folder.

• An essay that you could have written before taking this course is not acceptable. Your essay must show that you have understood and reflected on class material. An “approach” is somewhat more general than just an “idea” (the term used in the earlier essay). Approaches are the main things we looked at, usually 4-8 per module, and are generally but not always associated with specific people as the main point they are making. Occasional objections are not themselves approaches (e.g. Bertrand Russell’s objections to the cosmological argument are not “approaches”, but they were “ideas”). Each short story can be considered one approach. Buddhism contains many particular parts so you can consider various aspects in each module to be different “approaches” for this purpose. Think of the approaches as the well-developed views given to try to answer questions about reality or meaning. Be sure that the approaches you discuss are not too similar (e.g. Sartre and Camus are too similar). If in doubt email the professor ahead of time to confirm that your “approaches” will count. The rubric used to evaluate your essays is posted on D2L. Briefly, the criteria are:

1. Do you give and explain (not just mention) at least FIVE relevant and specific approaches from our class? (up to 3 points).

2. Are your explanations of these approaches accurate? (up to 3 points) 3. Did you give good reasons and evaluations, including how your view compares and/or

why your view is better? (up to 2 points) 4. Did you clearly explain YOUR view of meaning and reality? (up to 2 points)

The Specific Questions (Identify at top of your essay as “A”, “B”, or “C”). Choose the essay that will best enable you to explain your view in relation to the topic given. Be sure to keep your focus on the particular theme in the question. You must choose relevant specific approaches for each question. Not all approaches are appropriate for all questions! Note: for all three questions “meaningful life” should be understood to include the Buddhist conception(s) of Nirvana, and in general be understood broadly to include purpose & fulfillment. A: This question has two main aspects, but the first aspect is more important:

a. Choose one of the main topics we considered regarding ultimate reality: either the existence of God or non-self in Buddhism. Give your analysis of reasoning for or against it, and defend your conclusion about the correct view of the matter. This should involve assessing three “approaches” to the existence of God (from II-b, II-c, or II-d) or non-self (from IV-b or IV-c). [Note: do not discuss approaches to meaning of life here!]

b. Then assess the effect of the conclusion you make on two approaches in other parts of the course – that is, if you write on God, assess its effect on something from part III (non- theistic) and something from part IV (Buddhism), and if you write on non-self, assess its effect on something from part II (God) and something from part III (non-theistic). To “assess its effect” explain how it would strengthen or weaken the approaches as plausible explanations of reality or meaning. Choose approaches that highlight the effects.

B: At the beginning of the course we looked at Aristotle’s claim that human nature determines

the best kind of life for us. For him, humans were essentially rational beings, so a life using reason (life of learning) was best. Throughout the course we have seen other views that are based on human nature, although not all have discussed the issue in those terms. For this question, then, consider “human nature” to mean anything about us (not about the world) that is characteristic of all human beings. Which of the approaches to human nature and meaning do you think is right, and why? Explain and assess that approach and at least four others that in some way make the meaning of life dependent on human nature.

C: Do other beings (human or otherwise) ever prevent one from having a meaningful life, or

make it harder? Or is the opposite true and other beings (human or otherwise) are needed for a meaningful life? Consider your own view of a meaningful life in relation to other beings as well as some approaches we have studied that in some way relate a meaningful life for a person to their relationship with other beings (human or otherwise), either preventing or making it harder or being needed. (These relationships might not be central to those approaches but need to be an aspect of the approach.)