Philosophical Thought Comparison is an essay topic that encourages students to analyze and compare the philosophical thoughts of two great philosophers It involves exploring the works of a philosopher and comparing how they approach a certain issue or concept. By comparing the thoughts of two philosophers, students can better understand the nuances of the philosophies and gain a deeper understanding of the philosophical field.
Example 1: Compare Kant and Hume on the Nature of Reality
The works of Immanuel Kant and David Hume offer contrasting accounts of the nature of reality. For Kant, reality exists in objective forms and categories; reality is known a priori, meaning knowledge of it is gained without experience. Kant’s theory of a priori knowledge suggests our ultimate purpose is to identify the underlying laws of the natural world and of morality. Conversely, Hume argued that reality cannot be known a priori; he described humans as “bundles of perceptions.” For him, reality is entirely subjective in nature, as it is an interpretation of experience and the constant accumulation of knowledge. To understand the nature of reality, Hume argued that one must explore the causes and effects of events. A comparison of Kant and Hume’s views on reality can provide students with a deeper understanding of the philosophical field.
Example 2: Compare Plato and Aristotle on Virtue and Happiness
The works of Plato and Aristotle both explore the concept of virtue and happiness. Plato argued that living a moral life was the only source of true happiness, and that the ultimate aim of humans was to achieve knowledge of the eternal Forms. He described knowledge of the Forms as the “true and ultimate reality,” and argued that engaging in the pursuit of knowledge was the highest form of virtue. Aristotle, however, disagreed with Plato’s formulation of the good life. For him, the highest good was achieving a state of eudaimonia, or “human flourishing.” He argued that one must live an ethical life and cultivate virtues such as courage, temperance, and justice to achieve happiness. Comparing Plato and Aristotle’s views on virtue and happiness can help students gain a better understanding of the philosophical field.
Example 3: Compare Nietzsche and Sartre on Existentialism
The philosophical works of Friedrich Nietzsche and Jean-Paul Sartre offer a comparison of existentialism. Nietzsche argued that the individual is the highest authority, and that the primary purpose of life is to strive to become the best version of oneself. He argued that the individual’s values and meaning should be determined by their own volition, with no external source providing inherent value. Sartre took Nietzsche’s idea and developed a more formalized account of existentialism. He described existence as being “absurd,” arguing that meaning and truth are subjective and require constant reinterpretation. He also argued that the primary principle of existence was freedom, and that individuals should strive to make their own choices and create their own meaning. Exploring how Nietzsche and Sartre conceived of existentialism can provide students with a more complete picture of the philosophical field.
Example 4: Compare Descartes and Spinoza on Human Nature
The works of René Descartes and Baruch Spinoza offer a comparison of the nature of human beings. Descartes viewed human nature as being composed of two distinct substances: mind and body. He believed that the mind is separate from the body and immortal, while the body is composed of physical matter and therefore perishable. Spinoza disagreed with Descartes’ dualistic account of human nature and argued that individuals are composed of only one substance: God, who he described as an immanent force. He argued that the mind and body are unified, with the body being a manifestation of the mind. Comparing Descartes and Spinoza’s views on human nature can help students gain a deeper understanding of the philosophical field.
Example 5: Compare Marx and Mill on Social Structure
The works of Karl Marx and John Stuart Mill offer an interesting comparison of how they viewed social structure. For Marx, social structure was determined by historical materialism; he argued that a society’s economic base determined its superstructure, or political, legal, and social organization. He believed that class struggle was an inevitable result of a capitalist economy, and that the proletariat would eventually overthrow the bourgeoisie in a violent revolution. Mill, however, viewed the social structure as being determined by the “greatest happiness principle.” He argued that the greatest good for the greatest number of people should be the foundation of any social system, and that justice and liberty should be the cornerstones of society. Examining the differences in how Marx and Mill viewed social structure can provide students with a deeper understanding of the philosophical field.