2. Briefly describe the main parts of Platos Apology, namely Socrates refutation of the charges leveled against him, his suggestion of an alternative punishment, and his farewell. What did Socrates value most, and do you think he got what he wanted out of his life?
1) The Euthyphro where Socrates asks if the pious is pious because the Gods love it, or do the Gods love the pious because it is so pious. In short is it a Gods will that something is pious or is there some reason the pious is pious? For example, (the quiz question) Jesus comes to your door. Hypothetically, you know it is Him and you know He is God. He says to sell all you have, give the money to the poor, and come follow Him. Do you go with Him? Or do you ask questions and even argue with Him about it?2) The concerned Platos Republic where he describes his psychology. Do you agree with him that each persons character is fixed from birth?Length: 250 words for each question.
1. What, if anything, essentially distinguishes literary works of art (such as epics, novels, drama, and poetry) from other kinds of writings, such as scientific reports, historical treatises, religious texts, guides, and manuals, which may happen to be written in a literary manner? 2. In his Is Live Music Dead? Lee R. Brown argues that recorded music functions as a token (i.e. an instance) of a larger type (i.e. musical performance) but recordings may someday override this subtlety by treating all music sources as fodder to mix and match, without regard to their original status or the niceties of the process by which they were originally created. Do you agree with Browns assessment? 3. Roger Scruton argues that representation is necessarily intentional (as in a painting or sculpture) whereas photography is not representation. Further, Scruton maintains that photography cannot create representations. Do you agree with Scruton? Why or why not? 4. Clive Bell famously argues that what makes an item a work of art is its significant form, by which he means forms arranged and combined according to certain unknown and mysterious laws. Do you agree that significant form is the essential quality in a work of art? 5. Linda Nochlin argues that genius is not some inherent trait that male artists possess but women lack; rather, the little golden nugget of genius is something that is built up minutely from infancy onward, although the patterns of adaptation-accommodation may be established so early within the subject-in-an-environment that they may indeed appear to be innate to the unsophisticated observer Are there any other obstacles to womens becoming great artists, beyond their having been (largely) denied the opportunities to develop their talents? How can women artists overcome these obstacles? 6. In his The Aesthetics of Junkyards San Jose State University philosophy professor Thomas Leddy argues that, contrary to appearances, it is possible discern aesthetic qualities in a junkyard, and further, that such an admiration need not be anti-environmentalist in nature. Is it possible to have an ethical aesthetic appreciation of a junkyard or landfill? 7. In her Why (Not) Philosophy of Stand-Up Comedy? Sheila Lintott argues that whereas in tragedy the audience experiences negative emotion pleasurably, in stand-up comedy often the content is tragic but the audience experiences the positive pleasure of humorous amusement. As Lintott herself asks, How do form and content relate in these two cases? 8. In his Can White People Sing the Blues, Joel Rudinow quotes jazz critic Ralph J. Gleason who argued, [T]he blues is black mans music, and whites diminish it at best or steal it at worst. In any case they have no moral right to use it Do you agree with Gleasons assessment? Why or why not? 9. Aesthetic Cognitivism is the view that art offers humanity another means of accessing reality. This view runs counter to scientific claims (particularly those of physicists) who contend that the natural sciences provide the only accurate picture of reality. The aesthetic cognitivists counter that art provides significant insights into ethics and human psychology. With whom do you agree and why?
Leni Riefenstahl was a German filmmaker who famously made many beautifully shot films; unfortunately, she also made propaganda films for the Nazis, including her most famous work, Triumph of the Will (1934). This raises two disturbing questions: Can a great work of art be considered evil? Should an artis be praised for creating beautiful, but morally repugnant, art? Dear Students, Please find the attached essay topics. This assignment will be due by Friday, January 15th. Write between 3 to 5 pages and be sure to include the following aspects: A statement of the issue (i.e. what’s being debated?) A statement of where you stand on the issue (i.e. your thesis). Your main argument. Consideration of a counter-argument. Respond to the counter-argument.
PLEASE READ THIS VERY CAREFULLY BEFORE BIDING. Please cause this is a very confusing and complicated order. 1) The question i’m going to post is not the actually question I need but it’s going to be something similar to the one I post for this bid. The real question will be posted as soon as i get it, because when I do there is a time limit to when I need it( an hour and 30 mins). Which is why i’m posting a sample of the question, so you can be familiar with the prompt. 2) i’M not sure when in getting the prompt but it will be between today and tomorrow morning. i need someone who is usually online so they can see it as soon as i post it. 3) The price on this paper is small compared to the hard work that will be done so please let me know if you want to set a new price. 4) I’m open to providing a contact number is that will be easier for you. NOW INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PAPER. Source– 1 source is required. there are also restrictions on citing outside sources, and directly quoting/paraphrasing from the book. WORD COUNT- NO WORD COUNT MINIMUM OR MAXIMUM BUT PLEASE MAKE THE PAPER AT LEAST A PAGE. EXAMPLE PROMPT FOR THE PAPER. You are an engineer at the main factory of Gizmonix Corporation, a Fortune 500 manufacturing concern. The local newspaper has reported that freshwater mussels in the river that runs by your factory have been dying over the last six months at an unprecedented rate, creating a severe crisis in the rivers ecosystem. The die-off in the mussel population coincides with a dramatic and unexplained rise in the level of the rare industrial chemical ITZ in the river. In the company cafeteria, you overhear a group of researchers from the research and development (R & D) division talking about the ITZ they are using in a product development project, and the large quantities of ITZ they have been secretly dumping in the river for the last six months. You talk privately with several reliable sources, all of whom confirm that this is happening. Your sources also say that they would never admit this in public; and that the project team has been very careful not to leave any kind of paper trail, which means that there is no written record of the secret dumping. The state Environmental Protection Agency, which would be responsible for intervening in this situation, has been very friendly to industry. The agency has never imposed fines or criminal sanctions on any company for even the most severe environmental damage. The president of the commission is the husband of your companys Vice President for R & D. Your task in this essay is to determine, using the conditions proposed by Richard DeGeorge, whether it is ethically permissible or ethically obligatory for you to blow the whistle in this case. Your essay must include 1. a concise but thorough summary of DeGeorges conditions, indicating which conditions (if satisfied) make whistle-blowing permissible and which conditions (if satisfied) make whistle blowing obligatory 2. an analysis of which of DeGeorges conditions (if any) are met, and which (if any) are not metin this part of the essay, be sure that you discuss all the conditions 3. an explanation of why it is or is not morally permissible, and of why it is or is not morally obligatory, to blow the whistle in this casein this part of the essay, be sure to appeal to the relevant conditions in justifying your answer
With your own words answer the following discussion (310 words max) DO NOT WRITE IT AS AN ESSAY FORMAT . Would it be immoral to clone a human being? Defend your view. With your own words agree or disagree with the following discussion (100 words max ) I believe it would be immoral to clone a human being as it creates a human under the idea that it has been brought into this world to be used for specific purposes rather than an individual who was born to find their purpose and place in the world. Examples of this can be seen in so many scenarios, starting with the use of therapeutic cloning. This process of cloning the patient’s body for medical research calls into question the moral status of a human embryo. This only gets more morally complicated as we move into reproductive cloning. Producing a new human to be a copy of another is morally incorrect as it fails to take into consideration the impacts the life will have on the clone all justified by helping the original person who is being cloned. Additionally, the thought that a clone could be used to replace a person who has been lost creates a scary devaluation in human life from one of a kind to easily replicated and therefore not as valued. When we take on the role of creating a human through science, rather than through natural processes, it goes against human nature and can be unknowingly harmful for the individuals produced. The fact that we know cloning still has so many unknown consequences and outcomes, yet we still continue to experiment, already shows a lack of empathy for the individuals being created. In conclusion, I believe cloning a human is immoral because we are taking a natural process of creating a unique individual and creating a copy of that person without the same uniqueness. Even worse, creating a person who lives with the sole purpose of aiming to fulfill the purpose of another individual. This alone takes away the unique value a person has with their own soul but rather creating a shell of a person. What is human life for a person, without the right to an open future to develop as he or she chooses, but rather an expectation to be just like the originating person. I believe as a society we must go with our gut reactions and trust that the value and dignity of human life is far too important to put at risk.
DUE IN 6 HOURS!! Write about some experiences and situations in which you had to apply logical concepts learned in philosophy. Should be at least two FULL pages long. It should be typed double-spaced in times new Roman font size 12. Please use VERY SPECIFIC terminology, define them and explain how the concept is used in every day experiences. PLAGIARISM WILL NOT BE TOLERATED!!!!!!
What can be the contribution of the arts, i.e. art, or literature and/or music to thinking about and answering the question of the meaning of life? Discuss possible ways how art is able to give life meaning or discover its meaning and give potential examples. note: must use this two article: https://www.iep.utm.edu/art-ep/ https://www.iep.utm.edu/art-emot/ For more information on Art read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art
Looking over the initial material on the definitions of philosophy in topic one of the course, which definition (Aristotle, Novalis, Wittgenstein) would you say gives you the best feel for philosophy? What is it about the definition that interests you? what other questions do you have regarding the meaning of philosophy? what potential problems do you see with any of the particular definitions? For more information on Aristotle Novalis and Wittgenstein read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle