Assessment Schedule – 2012 Classical Studies: Explain in essay format an aspect of the classical world (90513) Assessment Criteria Achievement with Merit Achievement with Excellence Essay writing
Download 249.62 Kb. Pdf ko'rish
|
- Bu sahifa navigatsiya:
- Topic C – Socrates Question One Achievement Achievement with Merit Achievement with Excellence
- Question Two Achievement Achievement with Merit Achievement with Excellence
- Question Three Achievement Achievement with Merit Achievement with Excellence
- Topic D – Greek Science Question One Achievement Achievement with Merit Achievement with Excellence
|
Question Three Achievement Achievement with Merit Achievement with Excellence Examples of supporting evidence that lack specific detail might be:
religious offices and practices in creating a new ‘golden age’. The long period of civil wars at the end of the Republic had produced a feeling that the gods were angry with the Roman people for abandoning traditional religious practices. Augustus used this general feeling to promote his own reforms. He repaired a large number of temples, revived priestly colleges and celebrated old forgotten festivals. Moreover, Augustus linked himself to traditional religion by holding priesthoods and eventually becoming pontifex maximus. As a result, religion and political power became intimately related. Rome won back pax deorum, and a new golden age under Augustus came about.
Although all points might not be this well developed, an example of supporting evidence that is specific and detailed might be:
The long period of civil wars at the end of the Republic had produced a feeling that the gods were angry with the Roman people for abandoning traditional religious practices. Temples had fallen into disrepair, and some priesthoods remained vacant. Augustus used this general feeling of religious disquiet to promote his own Augustan peace, founded on the pax deorum. In his Res
reviving obsolescent cult fraternities such as the Arval Brotherhood. He even managed to find a patrician willing to fill the role of flamen dialis, a post that had been vacant for half a century. Moreover, Augustus linked himself to traditional religion by holding every major priesthood and eventually becoming pontifex maximus. As a result, religion and political power became intimately related. Rome won back pax deorum (reformulated as pax Augusta when necessary) and a golden age under Augustus came about. This new age of peace and prosperity was celebrated by the staging of a special thanksgiving ceremony in 17 BCE, the Ludi Saeculares.
An example of in-depth discussion of a part of the question might include:
religious offices and practices in creating a new ‘golden age’ • Civil war is linked in the popular imagination to neglect of traditional worship: Horace’s “tumbling shrines and stained images”. • For political reasons, and possibly with religious conviction, Augustus links pax deorum and Rome’s prosperity to his regime’s religious reforms. • Augustus restores temples, revives priesthoods, and celebrates ancient ceremonies, such as the Augury of Safety.
• He suppresses alien cults such as Druidism and places restrictions on eastern cult practices (banning worship of Isis and Serapis within the sacred boundary of Rome). • He revives the cult of the Lares, links it to worship of the Genius of Augustus and involves freedmen as priests. • Augustus’ holds every major priesthood, including pontifex maximus, enhancing his own political power. • The Ludi Saeculares are celebrated in 17BCE to recognise the new golden age, made possible by the princeps.
NCEA Level 3 Classical Studies (90513) 2012 — page 8 of 16 Topic C – Socrates Question One Achievement Achievement with Merit Achievement with Excellence Examples of supporting evidence that lack specific detail might be:
Socrates puts to Euthyphro, in Plato’s Euthyphro, and their purpose. Socrates asks Euthyphro, who has the reputation of being an expert on religion, a number of questions about the nature of holiness. His first question – “what is holiness?” – is answered by an example. Euthyphro says his prosecution of his own father is a holy act. Socrates tells Euthyphro this is not helpful and that he needs to provide a general definition. The rest of the dialogue is devoted to a series of questions about this general definition. They all involve making the gods the deciding factor in holiness. Socrates always finds flaws in Euthyphro’s answers and follows up with another question. For example, “what if the gods are not in agreement?”. Socrates asks these questions because he wants to know what holiness is. Since the visit of his friend to the Delphic Oracle, he has spent his life asking questions, trying to find out why the god said he was the wisest of men. Now that he is about to go to trial on a charge for being impious, these questions are very important for him.
Although all points might not be this well developed, an example of supporting evidence that is specific and detailed might be:
Socrates’ questions to Euthyphro are all directed at finding a valid definition of holiness. Socrates at first offers little specific direction to his interlocutor, asking simply “what do you say piety and impiety are?”. However, he at once finds that Euthyphro is a conventional thinker, who instinctively exemplifies, rather than abstracts. He therefore refines his question to ask not for one or two examples of holiness, but for “that special feature through which all holy things are holy”. Although Euthyphro does manage to come up with a universal definition – “what is agreeable to the gods is holy, and what is not agreeable is unholy” – disputes among the gods make it flawed. Socrates starts to lead the discussion and asks Euthyphro whether or not a “correction” should be made to the definition to the effect that “what all the gods disapprove of is unholy, what all approve of is holy.” Et cetera. Socrates asks Euthyphro these questions because he is about to be tried on a charge of impiety and seeks – though with heavy Socratic eironeia – enlightenment from “an authority in such matters”. In a philosophical context, the questions illustrate Socratic method. Socrates seeks to understand the nature of moral qualities by asking an interlocutor for definitions. Et cetera.
An example of in-depth discussion of a part of the question might include: The series of questions that Socrates puts to Euthyphro, in Plato’s Euthyphro, and their purpose. • Socrates’ first question is very open: “what do you say piety and impiety are?”. • Finding Euthyphro’s examples of holy things unhelpful, he then refines his question to ask what “single standard” defines a holy thing (“that special feature”). • When Euthyphro’s first non-specific definition (approval of the gods) proves problematic, Socrates asks whether or not the definition should be amended to one involving divine consensus: “what about this correction?” • A complicated series of questions follows, designed to prove that the holy gets divine approval because it is holy, not that the gods’ approval makes it holy. • Socrates’ next question is based on the premise that all that is holy is just. He asks Euthyphro to tell him “the precise kind of division of the just that is holy”. • Questions then focus on clarifying the meaning of Euthyphro’s suggestion that holiness involves “looking after the gods”. • The discussion comes to a halt when Socrates asks Euthyphro one last question: “ ... don’t you realise our account ... has arrived back at the same place”. ie the disproved definition of divine approval. • The purpose of these questions is to lead an interlocutor, through eironeia and inductive reasoning, to see the flaws in his thinking. • At a more profound level, Socrates wishes to encourage his fellow citizens to lead an “examined life” and to make sure they “set their thoughts on goodness”, rather than “trivialities”. • This questioning springs from Socrates’ divine mission: his determination to understand the words of the Delphic Oracle, his commitment to seeking the truth and his rejection of uncritical acceptance of conventional values
/ ideas.
• In a non-philosophical context, the questions are also linked to Socrates’ upcoming trial on a charge of impiety. Other points may be made and examples given. The analytical quality of the argument is more important than the amount of quotation.
NCEA Level 3 Classical Studies (90513) 2012 — page 9 of 16
Achievement Achievement with Merit Achievement with Excellence Examples of supporting evidence that lack specific detail might be:
(against the two charges he faces) might be considered annoying and / or confrontational. Socrates makes little effort to win the favour of the court. He makes negative comments about how trials are conducted – at one point saying the jurors’ behaviour is often no better than that of women, who are moved by weeping and children. When he answers the charges, he spends much of his time attacking Meletus, accusing him of being insolent and twisting what he says. He comes across as arrogant, describing himself as the best thing that had ever happened to the city. He is on trial for having a destructive influence on society by introducing new gods and corrupting the young, but he proudly tells the jurors that they need him, as a ‘lazy horse’ needs a stinging fly. And in a city, which took great pride in its democratic government, he says true champions of justice cannot survive.
Although all points might not be this well developed, an example of supporting evidence that is specific and detailed might be:
Socrates is openly critical of the way in which the courts of Athens operate. On several occasions he makes reference to the limited time he has available to make his defence, although he is facing the death penalty. He refuses to defend himself ‘as expected’: he will not use “flowery language”; he will not make “pitiful appeals ... with floods of tears”; he will not bring his children into court to arouse sympathy, even though he acknowledges this may irritate some jurors and harden them against him. When he responds to the charges, he makes no attempt to be humble: gods were not called to give testimony in support of the accused, but Socrates makes great play of having the endorsement of his god Apollo, at a time when the Delphic Oracle – for political reasons linked to the Peloponnesian War – was out of favour. He knows very well that his divine quest has aroused “a great deal of hostility” in the city and that his exposure of prominent Athenians is seen as corrupting of the young, but he makes his very ‘crime’ heroic: he compares his revelation of the ignorance of the so-called wise to Heracles’ “cycle of labours” fought against legendary monsters.
An example of in-depth discussion of a part of the question might include:
faces) might be considered annoying and / or confrontational. • Socrates is disparaging about the way in which the Athenian courts operate: he says he will not use “flowery language” or make “pitiful appeals” or bring his children into court. • He calls as a witness to his wisdom “the god at Delphi”: Apollo was out of favour in 399 BCE and as Socrates himself admits, calling on a god as a witness was “an extravagant claim”. • He asks the court to see his revelation of the ignorance of prominent Athenians as “a cycle of labours”, giving what many saw as the behaviour of “a pestilential busybody” Herculean status. • He defends himself against the charge of corrupting the young and inventing gods by belittling Meletus, ridiculing the man and his motivation, rather than addressing the charges. His clever rebuttal of the charge of religious heterodoxy is especially manipulative. • He admits that, if acquitted with the proviso that he abandon his philosophic quest, he would disobey the court, “owing a greater obedience to God”. • He tells the court that “no greater good has ever befallen Athens” than his divine quest: he is the “stinging fly” the “lazy” city needs, “a gift from God”. • He claims that the jurors will harm themselves more than him by putting him to death unjustly. • He justifies his avoidance of public service by claiming to have his own personal divine voice. It tells him that champions of justice cannot survive in politics in a city that prided itself on the active participation of all male citizens.
NCEA Level 3 Classical Studies (90513) 2012 — page 10 of 16 Question Three Achievement Achievement with Merit Achievement with Excellence Examples of supporting evidence that lack specific detail might be:
after death, expressed by Socrates in the works of Plato that you have studied. Socrates never expresses any fear about death, and will not abandon the beliefs that he has held true all his life, just to avoid drinking hemlock. At his trial he says that death is an unknown and it is not wise to fear something that is unknown. Death may in fact be a positive. His soul may head to another world where he will meet good people. Once he is dead, he will also be free of his body and no longer led astray by bodily pleasures such as food and sex. True philosophers are always preparing for death and Socrates considers himself a true philosopher. After escaping the body, in a new pure state, he will be able to find the true knowledge that he has sought all his life.
Although all points might not be this well developed, an example of supporting evidence that is specific and detailed might be:
In the Apology, Socrates tells the court that he will not compromise his principles to win a not- guilty verdict: leading a just life is what matters, not just living. Achilles gave no thought to death as he set out to kill Hector and Socrates will remain at his philosophic “post”, in obedience to his god, even if it costs him his life. In addition, he believes that fearing death is “another form of thinking that one is wise when one is not”: no one knows what death is – it may be “the greatest blessing that can happen to a man”. In
rewarded in the next life by entering into a better world, but at his trial he raises two possibilities: the first involves “a dreamless sleep” whereby the soul is effectively annihilated; the second and more attractive prospect involves removal of the soul “to some other place”. In this next world, Socrates would be beyond the reach of the Athenian court and enjoy “a wonderful personal experience” in the presence of great heroes and poets of the past – an “unimaginable happiness”. Etc, on Crito and / or Phaedo. Comprehensive discussion of all three dialogues should not be expected, but reference should be made to more than one dialogue.
An example of in-depth discussion of a part of the question might include: The ideas about death, and life after death, expressed by Socrates in the works of Plato that you have studied. In the Apology, Socrates says that: • the prospect of death is a less important consideration than acting “justly” • fearing death is “another form of thinking that one is wise when one is not” – no one know what death is, it may be “the greatest blessing that can happen to a man”
• death involves either total “annihilation” of the individual soul
/ “a dreamless sleep” or “migration of the soul from this place to another” • if there is another world, his soul will find other great souls to commune with • nothing can harm a good man, whether he is alive or dead. In Crito, Socrates says that: • what really matters is not avoiding death but living “honourably and justly”; this protects the soul which is our most precious part • there are no circumstances, even the prospect of death, in which one must “return injustice when one is wronged” • obedience is due to the Laws, who are more sacred than parents, even if they believe it is just to execute him, unless he persuades them otherwise • the laws of Hades will not receive him “with a kindly welcome”, if he becomes a law-breaker and acts dishonourably. In Phaedo, Socrates says that: • men are “possessions” of the gods and must avoid suicide even when death is preferable to life • he is not distressed by his imminent death because he expects to enter the company of “other wise and good gods ... and men ... better than those ... in this world”
• the true philosopher “makes dying his profession” because death frees the soul from the body and its demands, allowing it to attain true wisdom. Comprehensive discussion of all three dialogues should not be expected, but two should be covered in some depth. Other points may be made. The analytical quality of the argument is more important than the number of reasons listed. NCEA Level 3 Classical Studies (90513) 2012 — page 11 of 16 Topic D – Greek Science Question One Achievement Achievement with Merit Achievement with Excellence Examples of supporting evidence that lack specific detail might be:
philosophical aim of ataraxia. Epicurus’ philosophical aim was ataraxia – freedom from fear. The Atomic theory basically gives natural explanations for natural occurrences. These explanations are based on regular movements of atoms; when atoms do deviate, the movement is random and is not controlled by the gods. When Epicurus applied this theory to his philosophy it meant that since the gods are not controlling the movement of atoms, humans have nothing to fear from any divine interference in their lives.
Although all points might not be this well developed, an example of supporting evidence that is specific and detailed might be:
The Atomic theory provides an explanation of the universe which removes the power that the gods have over humans by claiming that the universe was created from atoms that move through the cosmos in parallel lines at a constant speed and that, at random times, an atom swerves randomly and ‘the atoms rebound in different directions’ (Lucretius). From this chain reaction, objects are created and destroyed. This physical theory was adopted by Epicurus because he wanted to remove the fear of the gods from the lives of humans. The atomic theory did exactly that, by removing the gods from the creative and motive power of the cosmos, and giving that power to the natural force of atoms. Since atoms move of their own accord, there is no reason for man to fear them.
An example of in-depth discussion of a part of the question might include:
ataraxia. • The age of Epicurus was one of disillusionment and fear. The old Greek world of independent city-states had gone, and with it the old religion that had assigned a divine protector to each city. • Individuals lost their sense of security on both counts, and new philosophies were emerging to give the people back what they had lost. • For Epicurus, the ideal to be striven for was ataraxia, a state of total freedom from anxiety. He was particularly concerned to release man from the fear of the gods and of punishment after death, and it was to this end that he adopted the atomic theory. • He sought to free man from the fear of the gods, by proposing natural explanations for natural phenomena, so denying that the gods have any interest in, or influence upon the affairs of men. • The atomic theory does this because it ascribes the motive and creative power of the cosmos to atoms which move according to their nature (downward, at a constant speed and in parallel lines) and from time to time by random ‘swerve’. Because the atoms do not act out of a sense of retribution, there is nothing for humans to fear. • He sought to free men from fear of punishment after death by teaching that the soul being made up of atoms (just as the body was) died when the body died; the ‘soul atoms’ simply dissipated and re-joined other soul atoms. An individual’s soul therefore had no permanent existence after death, and hence could not be punished.
NCEA Level 3 Classical Studies (90513) 2012 — page 12 of 16 Download 249.62 Kb. Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: 
|