11 Nov 2012

Essay Topic: The Healers: Varieties of Experience in Doctoring

This article discuses different reasons why people may decide to specialize in medical practice. It is a fact that there are different reasons why people socialize in medical practices. Moreover, there are different fields of medicine that a person may decide to specialize in. Specialization in different fields in medicine depends with a person. There are some people who specialize in medical practice for the purpose of stabilizing financially, while there are some people who specialize in medicine due to past experiences with diseases or health condition. The article has clearly illustrated different reasons why people may decide to specialize in different fields of medicine, for example, the illustration on Dr. Paul. Medical practice involves handling people’s lives, and specialists should not use the profession as a way of making money because it might lead to loss of lives due to incompetency. Therefore, medical specialists should engage in medical practices for the purpose of providing quality health services, and not concentrate on the high rewards associated with the profession (Kleinmann 209-227).

For God’s sake shake your booty: The Second original mystery

This article discusses the relationship between God and man and how God expects man to behave to enhance their relationship. The arguments of the author are clear and concise. However, the language the author has used does not fully comply with the expectorations of the target group. The article is targeting Christians and religious groups, while it has used terms such as shake your booty, which are not considered religious. The author should consider using religious terms to enhance credibility and appeal to the target group. The words used in the article ought to be in line with religious expectation on language use (Keene

Works Cited

Keeney. “The Second Original Mystery.” Keeney. For God’s sake shake your booty. New York: Plutarch, 1996. 25-55.

Kleinmann. “Eight Medical Lives.” Kleinmann. The Ealers: The Varieties of experience in doctoring. New Orleans: ACM Press, 1987. 209-227.

Filed under: Essay topics — Tags: , , , — admin @ 3:16 pm

02 Nov 2012

Sample Essay: Do We Need Proof of God Existence?


Every person asks whether God exists or not. Philosophers, theologians and other thinkers have spent a lot of time trying to answer this question but they end up in contradicting answers. There are many questions and issues that are directly related to this question for example why are people believers? Does God exist? What is the essence of religion? There is no specific answer to any of these questions and therefore one would ask why are people asking these questions to begin with? There are two major groups of people in reference to this issue; the believers and atheists. The believers will always raise arguments that prove the existence of God while atheists will always prove that God does not exist. This is a clear implication that there can never be an answer to the question of whether God exists or not. It can neither be proved nor disapproved and therefore this question is futile. The side taken by the atheists and believers is based on faith in which a person believes in something that s/he has no proof of its existence. The argument whether God exists or not is therefore not necessary. This essay is a manifestation that we don’t need proof of God’s existence.


Whether God exists or not depends on faith of a person. Believers will always be convinced that God exists and will always abide by the doctrines of their religions (Holley, 2011, p. 750). On the other hand, atheists will always argue that God does not exist and as such there is no need for religion. Faith is therefore the major aspect that determines the stand of an individual person on whether God exists or not. For example in 1943, Sartre in the analysis of Bataille’s L’Expérience intérieure known as, that even for Sartre, Bataille and many others “God is dead” (Hoven, 2010, p. 75). Sartre further asserts that people have not become atheists despite this. Sartre also says that it is not simple to become an atheist since it took him a lot of time to leave Christianity. This happens to many other people and therefore they are held up by the doctrines of their religion. If the religion advocates for people to believe in existence of God, this is what they take. Faith is therefore a strong virtue that determines the stand that one takes about the universe and existence of God. Faith develops gradually from childhood depending on the family and the community in which a person is brought up. A person grows with these virtues and believes in whatever the family and the society believes in, whether backed by evidence or not. In the arguments of Pascal that we all sail in the same boat, it is clear that the arguments of Sartre are based on a strong Christian tradition (Hoven, 2010, p. 76). It has previously been discussed in this essay that it was not simple for Sartre to leave Christianity. This is because he grew up in strong Christian faith that made him believe in God and doctrines of the Christian church. This is the same case with all people whether believers or atheists. Their faith is the major determining factor of whether they believe in existence of God or not. Any arguments by philosophers, theologians and other thinkers will therefore not have a significant impact in shaping the beliefs of people. This proves the thesis of this essay that we don’t need proof of God existence.

People are diverse and will therefore always have different opinions on whether God exists or not. As such, existence of God is not a matter of discussion. In the modern world, there is a de facto debate on religious issues ranging from pluralism, atheism and Islam (Peters, 2007, p. 84). Under Pluralism, the claim of any religion is respected (Siniscalchi, 2010, p. 51). This gives the freedom of worship and therefore any person is given the right to believe in what s/he thinks is the best. As such, there can be many religions and people can opt to believe in God or not. In atheism, the claim of no religion is respected and therefore people will simply say that God does not and have never existed and if he did, he is already dead (Hoven, 2010, p. 75). Islam respects the claims of its religion and that all other religions are not right. Despite these claims, the Christians still believe that their God is gracious and powerful. This means that people are diverse and will always have different views and beliefs about the existence of God. This is a matter that depends on the locations in which people are based and therefore arguments that try to proof whether God exists or not are not necessary. These arguments will always create conflicts and hatred among people since no specific group is ready to go against the beliefs of their religion to follow those of other people. God’s existence will always be a matter of discussion since people are diverse. It would therefore be best if people are allowed to believe in whatever they want since no single religion has been proved to be right or wrong and no thinker has proved the existence of God by facts. Everything discussed about the existence of God is phenomenal and only based on theories that have not been proved yet. The diversity of people and the existence of different religions increase confusion on whether Gods exist or not. Even the atheists have mixed reactions on whether God exists or not for instance religious atheists respect the beliefs of those attached to different religions (Peters, 2007, p. 88). This is clear illustration that people are diverse and will always have different views on religion and existence of God. Believers cannot explain succinctly why they believe and so do non-believers. This shows that matters or religion are phenomenal and no one can explain why some people believe in certain aspects while others do not. This is natural divergence and should be respected at any time. This proves the thesis that we don’t need proof of God’s existence.

Studies that have been conducted about existence of God have not defined one particular way of proving the existence. For instance in Proslogion, Anselm has presented a proof that God exists and this has attracted a lot of researchers since the late medieval period (Schumacher, 2011, p. 88). Anselm argued that it would be impossible to recount all the arguments that have been made on existence of God. Another person who has tried to proof the existence of God is Benedictine monk but his approach is very general and therefore it can be easily criticized. Different philosophers of religion assert that these proves can be accepted especially in cases of priori or ontological proofs. Thomas Aquinas has also attempted to prove existence of God through five ways that are based o the natural order. Different religion philosophers have argued that the statements of atheists are persuasive but there are those who have been opposed to this statement (Schumacher, 2011, p. 87). The different explanations that try to prove existence of God are questionable which implies that the attempt to prove God’s existence is not necessary at all. For instance, all the people who have been discussed in their attempts to prove God’s existence use different arguments which raises questions for example why do they use different explanations to prove the existence of one being? Which of the ways discussed to prove God’s existence should we believe? What is the rationale behind any explanation that attempts to explain God’s existence? The different numbers of explanations that attempt to explain God’s existence create room for criticism among the atheists. They will raise questions that oppose any attempted proof which increase confusion. People should respect that many philosophers and theologians have attempted to prove existence of God but they have always been criticized (Aijaz & Weidler, 2007, p. 7). The arguments of atheists always appear to be stronger than those of believers who always try to convince on issues that have not been proved yet and there are no signs of prove either. It would be to the best interest of human kind if arguments about existence of God do not continue. This is because every person believes in what s/he knows about God despite many explanations. God does not exist and if does, he do not want human beings to be aware of his existence otherwise he would have proved his existence. People should respect this and stop any arguments that try to prove the existence of God as this just increases confusion and hatred. The fact that no single study has absolutely proved the existence of God beyond doubt justifies the thesis of this essay that we don’t need proof of God’s existence.


The essay is based on a clear thesis that we don’t need proof of God’s existence. This has been discussed through three strong points in the essay. The first point states that people’s beliefs on existence or non-existence of God are based on faith and not theories or arguments that have been developed by philosophers and theologians. For instance Sartre asserts that it took him a lot of time to leave the Christian religion and become an atheist. This is because the doctrines of the Christian church and the belief that the God of Christians is gracious had dominated his mind and thoughts. In addition, it is stated in the essay that most of his arguments were based on the Christian faith. This means that faith plays significant role in determining the belief of a person about God’s existence and hence there is no need of proof.  The other major point that proves the thesis is the fact that people are diverse and will always have different views and opinions about existence of God. The essay has discussed atheists, Muslims, pluralists and Christians who have been found to have different arguments about God. These groups of people will always exist and therefore no need of trying to prove God’s existence. This is because each of the named groups will have its own views and opinions about this issue. The other point that proves the thesis is the fact that different studies have been conducted but no particular one has been able to prove the existence of God absolutely. All the studies are based on phenomenal theories which are always open to criticism. People should therefore be given freedom to believe in what they know about God.


Aijaz, I., & Weidler, M. (2007). Some critical reflections on the hiddenness argument. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion , 16 (7), 1-23.

Holley, D. M. (2011). How can a Believer Doubt that God Exists? Philosophical Quarterly , 61 (254), 746-761.

Hoven, A. V. (2010). Sartre and Atheism. Sartre Studies International , 16 (2), 75-84.

Peters, T. (2007). Christian God-Talk While Listening to Atheists, Pluralists, and Muslims. A Journal of Theology , 46 (2), 84-104.

Schumacher, L. (2011). The Lost Legacy of Anselm’s Argument: Re-Thinking the Purpose ff Proofs for the Existence of God. Modern Theology , 27 (1), 87-102.

Siniscalchi, G. B. (2010). Knowing that God Exists: Retrieving the Teaching of Dei Filius. American Theological Inquiry , 3 (2), 45-68.

Filed under: Sample essays — Tags: , , , , — admin @ 4:06 am

11 Oct 2009

Sample Essay: Plato and Aristotle

The two biggest names that come into mind when one speaks of politics are Plato and Aristotle. The two names stand tall, undefeated and unquestioned in the golden pages of political dialogues, reflecting the hearts and minds of people of their times and many more to follow. They devoted their entire lives understanding and interpreting individual citizens and their influences on political beliefs.  Their observations and descriptions of political motives and government forms, have established one of the main traditions in today’s political conceptions.

Plato’s idyllic city is established on the four qualities of astuteness or wisdom, valor, temperance and righteousness. Astuteness or wisdom formulates the city into a wiser one, valor makes it valiant. Temperance is the perception that all and sundry distinguishes his or her own role and righteousness denotes the “harmony that results when everyone is actively engaged in fulfilling his role and does not meddle with that of others” (Plato 85). “His understanding of the city is that it evolves because it fulfills certain functional needs” (Plato 39).

The requirements that are most apparent are provisions, which supports sustenance, protection, and last but not least clothes.  The metropolis can endow with every single one of these for the reason that each person that formulates the place has a definite responsibility. “The association with each other,” offers Plato, “was the very purpose for which we establish the city” (Plato 41). The metropolis would make an assemblage of the rich and the poor, the strong and the weak. The majority of men is only apprehensive of consequences and is commonly unmerited, not many are righteous as much as necessary to guide the city.

Nevertheless justice and virtue only are not adequate. The guardians – those who rule – must be physically strong, lovers of wisdom and knowledge and impervious to outside experience (Plato 46-51). The guardians also lived by a separate set of rules.Plato’s analysis said that each person had a different, but a significant, responsibility in the city. The earliest of Plato’s books were related to the appreciative of righteousness and integrity. One of his famous books, Republic was committed to the strategies of ruling.

Aristotle, on the other hand, speaks of a perfect or ideal society and puts a high value on moderation (Hacker 81). Several groups support temperance since it is partly open-minded and partly traditional Plato’s utopia remains vague and it is conceded to limits that no individual could ever execute them (Hacker 81). Aristotle supposes that Plato is underrating the qualitative alteration in individual temperament and traits that would have to take place in order to attain his utopia (Hacker 81)

The influence of Aristotle on the history of Christianity, virtues and modern politics is a subject that has been discussed for many years. The importance of Aristotle on the formulation of political theories, outside of the Mediterranean region, is not in dispute. The understanding that he had of the political influence of religion resulted in his permanent placement in the annul of political history.

Through the years, many historians, and writers have written about Plato’s influence on all genres. With points of view that are separated by decades, as well as philosophies, the wide range of influence of Plato has been regarded throughout history. Plato desired to inform the reader of his nation how men would operate and what their stance would be in an ideal social order (Hacker 81). Aristotle endeavors to employ actual men in the actual world. (Hacker 81).

In 1992, E.J. Hundert wrote that the changes in the view of the “nature of power”, stem from the Confessions of St. Augustine. In Augustine’s Confessions, he attempted to answer questions about personal and political power. The will of an individual to pursue power, of a political nature, calls into question the moral imperative. Augustine’s question implicates that the pursuit of power could be on the verge of sin; however, that would depend on the source of the desire. It is Augustine’s question, therefore, whether one’s desire for power comes from God, or Satan.

This question influenced the progression of the Christianizing nations throughout the post-Reformation eras. As Hundert stated, it was “one of Augustine’s significant achievements […] to convey the inadequacies of the inherited account of evil”.[1] By this, he meant that the idea of inherent evil, IE, original sin, was an inadequate explanation for the trials of the human spirit. Morality instead would be the primary judge of one’s motivations. The idea that one’s primary motivations were inherently evil seemed ludicrous. Therefore, the desire to seek personal power was not an inherently evil action – only through the conscious choice to pursue evil is it a sin.

The rhetorical statements of Aristotle created room for a shift in political ideology. By suggesting that intent was the source of sin, rather than actions themselves, one would be able to absolve himself of sin by believing that he was following a righteous path.

On the reverse of this, as Augustine wrote, “apparently virtuous acts, like prayer, sacrifice, or the risk of one’s life could in fact stem from vicious, self-regarding motives”.[2] This understanding called into question the root motivations of all people. However, looking at the actions of another, one could not see these motivations, and therefore, could not place judgment on their righteousness or validity.

Plato spoke on this as well. There was no rational process by which one could judge the actions of another – other than one’s personal reason. Reason, therefore would become the most important of the human virtues. He felt that reason, in the mind of any man, could not be corrupted by the passions of evil or by the sinful motivations of others.

Because of these theories, Hundert wrote that Augustine became the “integral feature of Christian moral psychology, secular moral philosophy and the history of political theory in Europe and North America”.[3] This effect would secure the motivations of leaders for centuries.

Hundert suggests that like Augustine, Aristotle argued there was a difference between reason and passion. For a reasonable person, the pursuit of power would be a safe action. However, one who served their own passions would be apt to sin. By maintaining, Aristotle suggests, a well managed ideology and conception of moral value, the pursuit of power would be just as viable an option as piety.

Together, Aristotle and Plato have an incredible power in the political scenario of today. Aristotle facilitated the formation of a few independent and sovereign thoughts. In the finale, Aristotle and Plato were great philosophers and intellectuals. Their judgment of the public and the social order were moderately dissimilar. With regards to virtues, they strived to explain and justify the obvious presence of an omnipotent and omnipresent power, much superior to mortal imagination; a power that the common man so casually calls God.  They aspired to save Christianity from the disruption of heresy and the calumnies of the pagans, and most importantly to renew and exalt the faithful hearing of the gospel of man’s utter needs and God’s abundant grace.  Even today, in the important theological revival of our own times, their influences are the most potent and productive impulses at work.  They were never against celebrating God’s abundant mercy and grace but also fully persuaded that the vast majority of mankind was condemned to a wholly just and appalling damnation. They never denied the reality of human freedom but never allowed the excuse of human irresponsibility before God, vigorously insisting both double predestination and irresistible grace.

Nevertheless they both had an identical objective, to fabricate an enhanced means of existence for the civilization they survived in and for the civilizations that were yet to come.Plato’s city operated akin to a life for, each one executing their customary to precision.

Works Cited

Hacker, Andrew. Political Theory: Philosophy, Ideology, Science. New
York: Macmillan, 1961.

Hundert, E.J. “Augustine and the Sources of the Divided Self”. Political Theory 20 No. 1 (1992): 88

Ibid Studia Patristica Vol. XXXVIII – St. Augustine and His Opponents. E. J. Yarnold, M. F. Wiles Peeters Publishers, 2001 ISBN 9042909641,

Hundert, E.J. “Augustine and the Sources of the Divided Self”. Political Theory. 20 No. 1 (1992): 88

08 Oct 2009

Sample Essay: Lockes Enquiry.Philosophy Modern

One of the two famous works done by John Locke is known as “An Essay Concerning Human Understanding”, wherein the focus of concern is about the human knowledge’s foundation including understanding. The mind was illustrated like a blank paper at birth wherein be filled later through experiences. This concept relates to modern times’ philosophy that influenced most of the philosophers like Bishop Berkeley and David Hume.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the undertaking of project in the Enquiry based on Locke’s method and motivation. The discussion also includes the comparison of things to Descartes in the Meditations.

The project explains Locke’s undertaking in the Enquiry based on specified and not on certain knowledge, the rules and standards served as a guide that add confidence allowing ourselves to have right opinions. The first method introduced by Locke was enquiring with the ideas or notions’ origin wherein a man needs to observe and be conscious about the ideas on their mind and be able to understand things that need to be equipped. Next method displays the knowledge and understanding through ideas, security and those that are evident. There should be little enquiry with regards to nature and grounds about faith or opinion known as acceptance showing truth and that certainty are really true. Locke expects the enquiry of nature and he relates it to the knowledge that leads the people to discover powers, the things that can be reached.

Locke’s Enquiry 3

The things are indeed sufficient in dealing with and other things that ignored by most individuals (John Locke, 2008). When things were successful, it usually affect the persuasion of man’s busy mind on becoming more cautious in terms of meddling with other things beyond the understanding of powers. Tether’s extremity and peaceful reconciliation with ignorance of things relates to the things beyond the capacities of most individuals.

Man needs to be truthful with no pretensions about everything and less aggressive to raise the questions and be confused with other things that relate to the understanding of things which are absolutely not applicable to the things that may not even form with clear and distinct perceptions in minds that may often happen and no notions at all. According to Locke, the scope of understanding evolved on the achievement of things with certainty wherein most cases point to judging and guessing which must be done in order to teach us accepting the limitations and then resting the content with only knowing the human conditions that enables us in knowing the things. Reaching of understanding usually may fall far short in the scope of things and people always have all the reasons to praise God for the kind and amount of knowledge that were given to people which were far above the creation. Most men have all the reasons to be satisfied with the things seen by God and they need to understand that everything was given in order to give life’s conveniences and to form their characters. This means everything needed discovery in life in order to find way to better one. Most men have the ability to look on plentiful materials and pleasure in terms of physical activities that affect the community in throwing the blessings away while the hands are filled with because the hands are considerably not big enough in grasping everything.

Locke’s Enquiry 4

In comparison with Descartes Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes promised to leave the room for soul’s immortality. Descartes used the metaphysical language of medieval because Descartes has moods to speak in a very intellect manner such as the abstract way regarding ideas and reasons. Descartes explanations regarding the human beings’ workings are indeed striking graphically with the circulatory system and pineal gland in relation to the Passions of Soul with emotional states as admiration and love (Descartes, 2008). Descartes can be described as the philosopher-by-nose rather than late medievalist or the early rationalist and his integrative dualism happened to be the dispute of modern version between materialists and those dualists of neo-Cartesian. Descartes’ substance language is known as the philosophical language used in talking the problem with modern reference in terms of mental and physical properties which is also considered as the other language.


Locke and Descartes have different point of views but the important thing is; they have their points that are specific and can easily be understood. According to Locke, most men consider the knowledge of capacities, in discovering the extension of knowledge and finding the horizon marking off the parts as illuminated with things from the dark one and the things can still be understood no matter how hard to understand. Locke never used any presupposition about the matter, mind and relation because the notions are indeed much easy to understand and not confusing. The value known as peculiar is the psychology consisting with attempt for keeping clear with his first enquiry about how the things come into mind and the next is the constitution of whole material with knowledge.


“John Locke’s Book 1”. From the Internet Explorer Web site. 30 September 2008.

< http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/pdf/locke1.pdf  >

“Descartes”. From the Internet Explorer Web site. 30 September 2008.

< http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/pdf/descmed.pdf.  >

“John Locke”. From the Internet Explorer Web site. 30 September 2008.

< http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/ >

“Descartes”. From the Internet Explorer Web site. 30 September 2008.

< http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/d/descarte.htm >

Place Your Order Now
Academic Writing Services:

Business / Professional Writing Services:

Free Essay Tips / Writing Guides:
100% Satisfaction Guarantee

We will revise your paper until you are completely satisfied. Moreover, you are free to request a different writer to rewrite your paper entirely, should you be unhappy with the writing style, level of research, communication, etc.

100% Authentic Research & Writing Guarantee

We guarantee that you will receive a fully authentic, 100% non-plagiarized work. Otherwise, we will just give you your money back.

100% Confidentiality & Privacy Guarantee

No one will ever find out that you have used our service. We guarantee that your personal information as well as any other data related to your order(s) will remain confidential to the extent allowed by law. It will not be shared with any third party unless you provide a written consent.