Writing Workshop: The 5-Paragraph Essay

I assume most of you have, at some point, learned how to write the 5-paragraph essay. If you haven't...well, here's how. For the rest of you, this is just a refresher, but with some helpful hints thrown in.

I really wish I'd written this up years ago (like, right after my junior year in high school), because I've been surprised how many people have found this information useful. Just last month I was helping Trish prepare for the GRE and I was trying to throw together a quick lesson on how to write a 5-paragraph essay, with examples (we used the questions from her practice exam as the examples).

It boils down to this: an essay is a medium for expressing an idea, with supporting arguments. The whole point of having a pre-defined thing called "essay" is to establish a framework in which to express your ideas. The structure of an essay should not be an artistic expression -- that's not the point. In other words, don't bring your e e cummings nonsense here.

In fact, the entire value of the essay is that you already know its shape, so you don't have to waste time and energy on that. Instead, you can focus on filling in the pieces to make your idea available. In graduate school, this shows up in the paper structures, where every single table of contents (and, yes, the papers have tables of contents) looks the same, the only difference being the actual titles of the chapters.

The simplest (practical) form of the structured academic essay is the 5-paragraph essay. When you see an essay question on a test, this is the safest way to answer it. Particularly any of those esteemed tests that come from the College Board, like the ACT, SAT, GRE, PSAT and et cetera.

So! How to write a 5-paragraph essay? The structure is, as I said, pre-defined. It looks like this:

-------------------------

I. Introduction - this paragraph should be 5-6 sentences in length, including the following:
A. Theme statement - what is the paper about?
B. Illustrative or example sentence - clarifying the idea you mentioned in A.
C. Argument 1 - a brief argumentative statement about the topic
D. Argument 2 - a brief argumentative statement about the topic
E. Argument 3 - a brief argumentative statement about the topic
F. Thesis statement - an arguable claim that you will defend, concerning the topic. The arguments from C, D, and E should, combined, prove F.

II. First argument - this paragraph should be 4-6 sentences in length, and present an idea that helps prove your thesis. Examine the sentences carefully, and make sure that each one leads into the next and, most importantly, that all of them combined work as a single argument supporting your thesis.

III. Second argument - same as II.

IV. Third argument - same as II.

V. Conclusion - this paragraph should be 4-7 sentences in length, and it should point out how the last three paragraphs proved your thesis. It might look something like this:
A. Restatement of thesis, using language established during the essay.
B. Statement of how the point from paragraph II supports that thesis.
C. Statement of how the point from paragraph III supports that thesis.
D. Statement of how the point from paragraph IV supports that thesis.
E. How these things tie to together.
F. Forward-looking statement, either examining what this proven thesis means (that is, how will it affect human behavior), or possibly suggesting what future research needs to be done on the topic.

-------------------------

So, there's the basic structure that you probably all know. I've added several helpful tips on how to make that happen, in the comments for this thread. I'm also adding outlines for the 5-paragraph essays I posted over the last week.

God: The Magic Architect

Once upon a time there was a Magic Architect and he was the best Magic Architect that had ever lived. The Magic Architect was able to build any kind of house or building just by wishing for it. Anything he could imagine, he could create, with just a word! His own home was a huge mansion, and it was filled with delightful things, but there were very few surprises there. Everything was simple, and beautiful -- every wall, every room, every decoration.

Then one day the Magic Architect had a child! A beautiful baby boy was born, and the Architect was very happy, and very in love with his little son. As the boy grew older, he began to play with toys, and his favorite toys were little blocks. The boy would sit for hours, building, and the Magic Architect saw that his son, too, would be a Magic Architect.

(Continued in comments...because it is REALLY long.)

Greatness: Self-Determinism and the Nature of Reality

One of the most fascinating aspects of human history has been the remarkable success of the human species. Man, pitted against all Nature, has been able to thrive in nearly every climate. Man's dominance over his environment can be seen in every aspect of his life. Man acts as Creator, Preserver, and Destroyer, building environments to suit his needs, maintaining them according to his expectations, and destroying them when and where they no longer suit him.

Man exerts his control over his environment in many ways, from metaphorical response to concrete pragmatism. From his earliest days, Man has used storytelling to create meaning and understand the world around him. By interpreting natural events in mythical ways, early Man was able to conceptualize the complexities of his environment in his own terms, and then respond to the story, rather than the base environment, in a way that allowed cultures to unite and prosper in pursuit of common goals. By sharing stories, individuals were able to share their interpretations of the world in which they lived. While the creative story defines the meaningful world in which Man lives, his interaction with that world tends to take a concrete form, in the use of tools and technology. From the crudest axe to the particle accelerators and nuclear reactors we see today, Man has long sought to use the elements of his environment to shape it into one more suited to his desires. Whether building structures for safety or damming rivers for power, whether moving mountains for easier travel or developing medicines to double his lifespan, Man uses technology to shape the reality he encounters into the reality he desires. Even within his own communities, Man creates reality, building up social structures to define the roles of community members, and manipulating expectations so that the creative energy of a multitude might work together to strengthen their shared environment. This last process can be most clearly seen in any established institution, from the covenant of marriage to the culture of Western Science, societies work together to construct shared systems of control on their environment.

Of course, these institutions are as much devoted to sustaining as they are to creating, and this can be seen clearly in the tendency of such systems to incorporate a great degree of tradition and respect for history. The base concept of "culture" -- that is, the collection of human creations that most clearly illustrates a society's constructed environment, most commonly in art and stories -- is a maintenance force. That is, the cultural works of a society are valuable precisely because they are able to illustrate aspects of the society's constructed reality, and encourage an audience to continue to construct for themselves a similar reality. By "constructed reality," I mean those aspects of a society's environment that are not inherent, not absolutely natural. This extends to every manufactured good, every built structure, but also to ephemerals that factor -- in a very real way -- into the lives of the society's members; ephemerals such as morality, covenant relationships of any sort, and higher-level constructs such as worldview that, though based on the natural environment, will not naturally occur in precisely the same way from individual to individual, or society to society. Whenever a society agrees to share a constructed reality -- again, from a similar architectural style to a generally compatible worldview -- the society tends to devote itself to the maintenance of this constructed reality. On the most practical level, this is seen in Man's animal instinct to survive, as the individual seeks to maintain a reality that includes him, rather than accepting nature's proposed reality that...doesn't. This same practical survival instinct echoes through all levels of a society's constructed reality, as people strive to maintain what they have built, encouraging others to accept their own creations, and defending them against outside threats. Just as Man's creative aspect can be found in the tools he uses to create, so too his sustaining aspect can be seen clearly in the tools he uses to measure and to record. Man's clear desire to ever-more-perfectly measure and describe the world around him arises out of a desire to defend that world, to replicate his reality as faithfully as possible, whenever it is threatened.

Any force capable of creating and sustaining, must necessarily be able to destroy, as well. Consider the example of Man's animal desire to survive, used earlier. This very basic sort of sustaining can only be achieved through the act of destruction, whether of plants and animals used as nourishment or of enemy creatures competing for resources. In the same way, Man's power over nature includes a powerful destructive aspect on every level. Just as story and myth are used to create a meaningful worldview, there are methods of philosophical and rhetorical speech that can be used to destroy constructed meaning, from Nihilism to parody and satire. Furthermore, some methods of constructing meaning, such as Rationalism and Western Science, simultaneously construct meaning while destroying any other constructed systems that might rely on the same source material. Of course, Man's destructive nature is not limited to his own constructions, but can also be bent against his base environment, destroying aspects of it that stand in his way (such as a mountain demolished to clear a path for a highway). Naturally, such destruction must also extend to those competing with Man to define his environment -- namely, other societies of Man. Thus we have seen, throughout history, the violence and brutality of war, the viciousness of execution and murder, as Men ultimately destroy those who would challenge them to define the environment in which they move.

It is easy to focus on this last aspect of Man's power and despair. It is equally easy to look on great works of art from time gone by, and regret what has been lost, or to consider Man's wondrous accomplishments and marvel at the greatness of Man's spirit. It is most important, though, to consider the whole aspect of Man's power, to see clearly the ways in which Man builds environment (and maintains it, and destroys anything that would challenge it). It is important to understand the whole picture, to consider the parts together, so that we can more wisely interact with our fellow Man, and more powerfully, more perfectly shape an environment that will benefit us all.

(Click on Comments for links to previous posts on this topic.)

Government: On Self-Government

One of the most bitterly fought debates in human history is the nature and extent of a state's authority over its citizens. The histories of all cultures are filled with stories of rebellion, revolution, and contention between the citizens and the state, and yet every culture in history returns to government authority in one form or another. In fact, it is by organizing into States and submitting to government authority that Man is consistently able to overcome his Natural environment and prosper in strong communities. Just as individuals learn self-control, submitting the demands of their animal selves to the authority of reason, societies must submit the demands of the individual to the authority of government in order to reach their potential -- greater potential than any individual could achieve.

Throughout history, individuals have demonstrated the basic human need to organize into groups for greater strength. Whether motivated by fear of an outside force or desire to accomplish a difficult task, communities form when Man tries to overcome his base potential and become something more. (The philosophical term "State" refers to any relatively persistent, organized community of individuals. The term "Government" is used to refer to a state's organizational structure, whatever it may be.) States emerge from individuals' need for greater power, and States are consistently more powerful than individuals for some very simple reasons. When individuals collect into a State, they are able to pool together their various resources, creating (for the State) more opportunities than existed for any individual within the group. Furthermore, the increased number of workers (and, therefore, man-hours available per daylight hour) create more productivity -- the State is able to get more done with the resources available than any individual could. Also, and not the least significant, each individual within the State brings his own point of view and his own educational background. Faced with any given problem, the State can consider it through many points of view and thus has greater available creativity than any individual considering the problem through his own narrow focus.

While these benefits obviously provide States with immense potential, the realization of this potential is greatly limited by the very individuals that create it. While individuals provide a State with the resources, labor, and insight to meet its goals, these same individuals will naturally tend to want to spend their resources, labor, and insight on tasks of personal (not State) benefit. It is natural for a person to want to spend his own resources (and, in fact, any available resources) on himself. Similarly, he will want to work toward his own goals, not (necessarily) those of the community. This selfishness can be mitigated to some extent by homogeneity within the community -- that is, if all of the State's individuals have the same resources available, they are less likely to be jealous of others' resources. Similarly, if they all desire the same goals, the community can more easily work toward those goals. However, the greater the degree of homogeneity within the State, the fewer benefits arise from community, particularly because of the loss of points of view. In other words, States with high degrees of similarity among their citizens will tend to have the easiest time remaining incorporate, but the least reason to do so. Meanwhile, States of highly diverse individuals will have the most difficult time remaining incorporate, but will achieve the greatest potential.

Government, then, should not be the method of oppressing individuals, but the organizational method that best balances the tension between majority rule and individual freedom. That is, Government should use the resources of its citizens, not only to satisfy the needs of the State, but also to satisfy the needs of individuals. Similarly, Government should organize the efforts of the many, not toward any individual's goals, but toward projects that expressly improve the welfare of the State (including its individual citizens). Similarly, Government should encourage the exchange of ideas for the good of the State. It is never the right role of Government to protect the rights of individuals against the State (that is, in ways directly harmful to the State). Rather, in all things the Government should seek to protect the whole, never its individual parts. Bear in mind, though, the distinction between Government and State. It is expressly not the Government's role to protect the Government, but to protect the State -- that is, the whole community of individuals. Inasmuch as the Government promotes the interests of governors above other citizens, it is no longer protecting the State, but subverting it for personal gain.

Such abuse, of course, creates the rebellion, revolution, and contention that have plagued every State ever born. In spite of such turmoil, though, Man's greatest potential can only be found within a community; and so men have continued throughout history to organize into powerful States. The most powerful have been those best able to harvest the abundant resources of a diverse population, while maintaining the singular identity of a community. This unnatural complement, this amazing construct of the hearts and minds of Man, has defied nature and allowed Mankind to overcome extreme adversity and accomplish extraordinary goals.

(Click on Comments for links to previous posts on this topic.)

God: Interaction with the Father-King

One of the most compelling aspects of the Christian concept of God (borrowed, as it is, from the Jewish tradition) is the image of the Creator as a Father-King figure. This is not, by any means, an image unique to the Judeo-Christian religion, but its role within the religion is, at the same time, one of the most comforting and one of the most challenging aspects of the religion. The God-as-King image establishes God's dominion over Man (and, in fact, all of creation), as an active and concerned observer. Meanwhile, the God-as-Father image establishes God's direct relationship to Man, and this relationship gains its greatest strength in the tenderness of the relationship -- God is portrayed as a kind and accepting Father, mitigating the distance of authority through his personal concern for individuals, and his constantly accepting (and even longing after) his children. Moreover, the teachings of --and, in fact, the very existence of -- Jesus, supported by the letters of his followers included in the New Testament, establish these two aspects of God as a single, complete descriptor of his relationship to Man. This relationship clearly establishes God's intent for Man, Man's responsibilities toward God, and the proper manner of interaction between the two.

Although the New Testament sees frequent references to the "Kingdom of Heaven," the God-as-King image within the Christian community derives primarily from his portrayal in the Old Testament. The Old Testament tells the story of the Creator God, who built reality from nothing, forming it by the force of his authority. Man, a part of that Creation -- albeit a special part -- was likewise a creature crafted in submission to an all-powerful lord. Through the Covenant with Abraham, then later the establishment of the Law through Moses, God established a ritual-based relationship with Man, in which he clearly defined Man's position as a subject of the King. The Old Covenant included rules and regulations that clearly showed the difference between Clean and Unclean, and revealed the vast distance between Man (the Unclean) and God (the Clean) -- a distance that could be bridged through rigorous adherence to the Laws of the King, but these very laws emphasized the distance.

Christ, however, defied that distance when he prayed, "Abba, Father," speaking to God as a little boy speaks to his daddy. God established, through the presence of Christ as well as through his teachings, that his intent was for a closer relationship with Man. Christ shows us an image of God that is not the tyrannical rule of a distant king, but the kind attention of a loving father. Jesus stresses this image with references to God's providence, speaking of his concern for his children. This is particularly clear when he speaks of prayer, encouraging his followers to pray to God just as a child asks his father for something, and emphasizing that God will give in abundance. Of course, the greater significance of this image is not the change in God, but the impact it has on Man's self-image -- through Christ, Man is given the opportunity to see the divine within himself. The distinction is no longer between Clean and Unclean, but between Adult and Child. While Man is still not-God, it is not a difference of being, but of becoming -- that is, Man is not inherently not-God, but rather not-yet-God. God testifies to this in two ways: the perfect life of Christ shows the capacity of man to live like God; furthermore, in Christ's death, God offers perfect forgiveness to Man, dispelling the constant attention to Cleanliness that maintained a distance of degrees from God and replacing it with a system of Absolution that brings Man, in one step, into God's presence.

Christ does not abandon the old image of God, however, and neither should Christians. Although Christ goes to great effort to establish the God-as-Father image, he frequently refers to the Kingdom of Heaven, and so reinforces the authority of God. Rather, once he has established the God-as-Father image, he returns to the God-as-King image to show the significance of Man's adoption by God. Although it can be found throughout the New Testament, Paul states this concept most clearly in the book of Romans, stressing how God-the-King -- that is, the very Creator God, who holds dominion over all Creation -- has not only shown loving concern for Man, but has brought Man into his inheritance, establishing him as "heirs of God, and co-heirs with Christ." Through this act of adoption, God made obsolete the Old Covenant, the system of rituals and Laws by which Man defined his relationship with God. Instead, Christians are all promoted to Priesthood, are all welcomed into the Holiest Place. As heirs of the King, Christians are welcomed into the Lord's throne room, where before they came only with fear and trembling.

The relationship of Man to God expresses itself in the interaction between them. The God-as-King relationship demanded complicated rituals that reinforced the difference between God and Man. The very act of worship -- an ancient term referring to the debasement of courtiers as they approached a king -- has been done away with, replaced with a personal interaction that allows Man to approach God directly, to speak with him as a loving, caring audience. And this honor is extended not to some (as the old Priesthood implied), but to all of the Children of God -- that is, to all Mankind. And with that change in relationship comes a change in responsibility. It is no longer the role of Man to recognize his difference from God, and live according to it, but to recognize his proximity to God, and live in accordance with the gift he has been given. It is not the call of the Christian to live as one condemned, but to live as one given life. Moreover, it is the responsibility of every Christian to recognize the great wealth that is his inheritance, and to spend it responsibly. It is not enough to recognize that God is better than Man, it is not enough to recognize that God has shown his love for Man -- rather, a Christian must recognize that God has made Man like-God, and therefore live as though he is already a Prince in the Kingdom of Heaven. This recognition is, at the same time, one of the most comforting and one of the most challenging aspects of the religion

(Click on Comments for links to previous posts on this topic.)

No, There Is Too Much. Let Me Sum Up.

Okay, Cindy (Julie's sister, for those who haven't been paying attention) mentioned not knowing my position on politics, and I was thinking about ways to answer her, and I was just working with Trish last week on the old tried and true 5-Paragraph Essay, and I ran into a confluence of ideas.

My ideas on God, Government, and Greatness all call for extensive supporting ideas, and many of them lean on each other, and they pretty much all draw from my Pragmatic Neo-Platonist Absolute Social Constructionist version of Postmodernism. So, because of all those thing, instead of writing a post on day one explaining what I believe about, say, the Church, I've spent months making posts on minor points.

Which, I still think, was a good idea. But I should, somewhere, mention what I'm trying to get at.

So I'm going to take a stab at writing three 5-Paragraph Essays, little thesis papers trying to contain the main argument on each of my three Gs. So that's why those will be up, and the context in which you should judge and ridicule them. Enjoy, or ignore. Your choice, as always.

Government: The Cycle of Revolutions

I actually wrote up these ideas for a paper my junior year in high school. It fits into the conversation very well, here, given that I just posted my views on relationships and society.

It goes like this:
When people work together, they become more than the sum of the parts (as I said a couple days ago).

People do not naturally work together, though. Also as I said, it requires some external force to keep them together.

Moreover (with regard to government at least), the greater-than-the-sum-of-its-parts aspect can only be achieved when the community is, to some extent, working toward a common goal or in complementary manners. (Not to be confused with "complimentary manners," which are also helpful). In a family or group of friends, they will generally be working toward common goals (maintenance of the family, maximization of opportunities to get carefree-drunk, that sort of thing), but a government based simply on linguistic or geographic similarities generally will not have that sort of natural symmetry of purpose.

In times of wealth or general prosperity, a community can afford a great degree of inefficiency, thus it will tend to operate on a natural, ungoverned level. This encourages the diversity within the group, but the group also acts less and less as an effective whole.

Eventually, times of prosperity will be challenged. It is the Nature of Things. It's practically what they do, when you get right down to it. Golden Ages End. Write that in large letters.

When the community is faced with hard times, its inefficiency becomes a great weakness. In order to succeed, the community will seek out efficiency. This is the role of government. Government organizes and orders the diverse elements of a community to act toward a common purpose, using coordinated efforts. You can see this build-up very clearly in the conversion between a peaceful state and a wartime state, but it can happen in any event that threatens general prosperity.

In order to eliminate the threat, the community provides for itself powerful leaders. This is equally a description of the processes that established King Saul, King David, Julius Caesar, George Washington, Hitler, and G. W. Bush -- most powerful leaders, good or bad, democratically elected or not, gain their prominence when their community feels threatened and helpless. If the leader that emerges is ineffective, the community will either find a stronger one, or suffer further hardship.

If a successful leader is found, that leader will guide his community through adversity. This can only be achieved by maximizing the community's efficiency, as I said before. Maximizing efficiency is a process of oversight and organization. Again, consider any historical example you care to. I like Charlemagne and Caesar in particular, but take your pick.

Once the leader has attained success, you will find a nation of extraordinary capacity, given its organization and efficiency. Consider the post-war boom in America during the 50s, or the decadence of the Roman Empire following Caesar Augustus' consolidation of power.

This level of success emboldens the members of the community who, no longer faced with an external threat and clearly aware of their own power, resent the oppressive regime that dictates (that is, organizes and oversees) their lives. As the community achieves a greater degree of general prosperity, the efficiency provided by strong government becomes less necessary, and the people, in one way or another, pull down their leader, preferring to operate on a natural, ungoverned level.

Now, if the community has long been accustomed to strong leadership, they may immediately feel a sense of fear and weakness following the overthrow of their leader. In such a case, they may immediately restart the cycle, by seeking out a strong leader to comfort them. This may also happen if the process of removing the previous leader is drawn-out or exceedingly difficult. Consider the French revolution as an example of the latter (and the terrible Robespierre), or the tyranny of Cromwell on the overthrow of King Charles I in England.

On the other hand, the revolution may go peacefully, and the people are left with relatively impotent government, and a period of general prosperity. They will be happy in this natural state for a while.

But remember: Golden Ages end. It seems to be the nature of man to promote tyrants in times of need, and detest them in times of prosperity.