March2012Portfolio

This is where we'll post our work WHAT DO I MEAN? HOW DO I KNOW? WHY DOES IT MATTER?
 * Thesis = 2 parts **
 * Body paragraphs – try to not start with an author—try to start with a piece of your thesis! **

Each author in this reading set defines the characteristics of friendship. In your essay, take a position on this issue: is Emerson’s claim—that a high standard of defining friendship (what Emerson speaks of as “the higher the style we demand of friendship”) makes it harder to achieve in concrete situations—applicable to the other readings in this set?
 * Question **:

is Emerson’s claim applicable to the other readings in this? Yes to this extent and no in these ways Support your position by analyzing Emerson’s and at least three other authors’ definitions of friendship presented in the reading set. Emrson;s pessimistic claim that if we have high expectations for friends we won’t have many friends (7) is both applicable and not applicable to the definitions in Meilender, Hall and Parekh in the sense that everyone identifies both the advantages and pitfalls of friendship but some are more optimistic than Emerson. __ Intro __ : Friendships are both inevitable and problematic. They are inevitable because we are social creatures and problematic because sometimes our expectations exceed what we can really hope to give and get. Mnay philosophers from every culture and religion have thought and wriiten about friendship as both necessary and imperfect. Each culture and religion has offered different solutions and sources of the problems. Four philosophical-theological approaches demonstrate somne of the ways people have understood the nature of friendship: 19th American(i.e. Emerson), Christian, Confucian and Hindu. (Thesis=)Emerson’s pessimistic claim that if we have high expectations for friends we won’t have many friends (7) is both applicable and not applicable to the definitions in Meilender, Hall and Parekh. --The main way they are applicable is in the sense that everyone identifies both the advantages and pitfalls of friendship, and the differences are that some are more optimistic than Emerson. __ Summary of the problems and promises of friendship (all my authors) __

__ Body __ : part 1=where and how applicable part 2 = some are more optimistic than Emerson “ Friendship is the most natural kind of relationship for people to have and create. We see in every society, from past to present, from small to large, and from simple to complex, that people form voluntary bonds of mutual help and affection( 3, 7,12, 15). there
 * 1) Discuss how all see friendship as ‘natrual’ and therefore inevitable
 * 2 parts: **** how and how not applicable? **


 * 1) **** Overall definitions of friendship **
 * A) **** Where like Emerson? **
 * B) **** Not like emerson? **


 * 2) **** The yes but… **

the different philosophical and theoligical systems help to explain the similarities & differences in their definitions/theories

what do they all have in common? advantages and traps of friendship

where Emerson is applicable:
 * 1) they all see freidnship as good
 * 2) but there's no guarantees that a firendship will be good and will last
 * 3) friendships can vary in terms of quality ('good' and 'bad')
 * 4) they all see some common characteristics of good and bad
 * 5) friendships are voluntray

NATURE OF FRIENDSHIP 1. permanent vs. changing (p.4) Emerson accepts the idea that friends can come and go (5) "law of nature is alternation..." He seems to see that as simply part of how the world works. Part of the lack of permanence stems from the fact that the basis or criteria for a freindship seems to be feelings: "The instinct of affection..." (5) and whether they have something in common and if the friend/potential friend is of the same quality as oneself.

2. because he has these high exepecttaions but no way to reach them he spends alot of time fantasizing and wishing

2. voluntray (4,

Where Emerson is less applicable:
 * 1) Different defintions cause different approaches to the problem.
 * 2) part of the defintion is the purpose for friendships:
 * 3) the defintions and their philosophical contexts also shape the way friendship is measured.