philosophy

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 Brown’s 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 women’s 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 man’s 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 Gleason’s 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 river’s 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 company’s 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 DeGeorge’s 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 DeGeorge’s conditions (if any) are met, and which (if any) are not  met—in 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 case—in 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!!!!!!

Based on your readings, what is one primary feature of post-Enlightenment ethical relativism and how does it compare or contrast with the Christian worldview?

Three Parts to Include in Report: Part One: Intro to Philosopher 1. Name and time period of philosopher 2. What was the report (focus) of the philosopher in ethics? 3. Tell us about the basic BIO. of the philosopher? 4. Tell us a few things totally offbeat and unusual (and perhaps funny) about the philosopher. Part Two: Primary Readings/Summary 5. What is the name of the philosopher’s famous work in ethics (primary readings)? 6. How many pages did you read of it? Which sections?? 7. Give us a basic summary of what you read. (sections 7 and 8 are the most important parts of the report) 8. Analyze the material…compare/contrast/evaluate Part Three: Application 9. Apply the philosopher’s ideas to today / to yourself. 10. Would you recommend this philosopher to others? Overall, what do you think about this philosopher? Did the philosopher change your thinking in any way? Any final statements about this philosopher??

The  paper should address the theme of ‘Ethics and Art,’ which brings  together the readings from the fourth part of our course (Xingjian,  Borges, Lispector, Achebe).I would like you to write a short essay of 1000 to 1200 words (in Times New Roman -12 point font, 1.5 spacing, with a Title at the beginning, and a Works Cited page at the end).   Again, you are asked to take a position on one (or two) of the readings and/or stories that we have examined in this fourth part of the course. What this means is that you can write your paper entirely on one of the readings or stories from Part IV of the course: 1. Gao Xingjian (The Case for Literature) 2. Jorge Luis Borges (The Secret Miracle) 3. Clarice Lispector (Love (“Amor”)) 4. Chinua Achebe (The Madman) Or, you can compare two of the readings/stories: 1. Xingjian and (any of the stories) 2. Borges’ The Secret Miracle and Lispector’s Love (“Amor”) 3. Lispector’s Love (“Amor”) and Achebe’s The Madman 4. Achebe’s The Madman and Borges’ The Secret Miracle As before, the main point of the assignment is that you take a position in your essay on the reading(s), and/or, story (or stories).  In close detail, and from the texts that we have read, clearly and accurately describe the main ethical issues presented in the story (or stories), and/or, the reading.  Also, how do you personally relate (or not) to the characters in the story, or to the reading itself?  Above all, as you were required to do in your previous papers, take a clear argumentative position, and argue for it convincingly throughout your  essay. Suggested Questions and Topic: As before, you are free to develop your own original topic for the essay,  as it relates to the readings we have read in this fourth part of the course. You  are also free to bring back certain theories and ideas from earlier  parts of the course, if they will help to strengthen your main thesis  (i.e., any of the philosophers that we have looked at in the course).  Here are two suggested essay topics that may help to guide you with the assignment. 1. (Ethics and Literature) How is the theme of ethics central to Gao Xingjian’s essay and Nobel lecture, The Case for Literature  (2000)? What are the main ideals and qualities that Xingjian argues are essential for an individual writer? How have the politics and history of the twentieth century affected Xingjian’s ideas about ethics and literature? And finally, and most importantly, do you agree or disagree with Xingjian’s views about ethics and literature, and why? 2. (Short Stories and Ethics)  Each of the three stories that we have read presents an individual in the midst of an ethical “crisis.” Each story also asks us to reflect upon this crisis in relation to the four themes of our course (ethics and knowledge, ethics and the individual, ethics and society, and ethics and art). In  “The Secret Miracle” (1944), by the Argentinian writer, Jorge Luis  Borges, we find a character, Jaromir Hladik, who is sentenced to death by a firing squad, during the Second World War in Prague. In  “Love (“Amor”)” (1960), by the Brazilian author, Clarice Lispector, we  follow a day in the life of a woman who experiences a strange “crisis”  on a tram in Rio de Janeiro.And  in “The Madman” (1972), by the Nigerian novelist, Chinua Achebe, we follow the events in the lives of two villagers who each go into town to  a market.  In your essay, choose One or Two of the stories, and answer the following questions:   i).  What is the central “crisis” that the main character(s) experiences in  the story? And how do you interpret the crisis and the character’s actions in relation to ethics? ii).  Does the story (or stories) you choose to write about in your essay remind you of any of the ethical themes and questions that we have examined so far in the course, and how? (i.e., are there any clear  ethical theories and philosophers that come to mind from our readings?) iii).  How did the story (or stories) affect you as a reader? How did it make  you feel? Does the way the story is written influence your interpretation? And if so, how might the aesthetic qualities of the  story be understood in relation to the main ethical themes and questions that we have been examining in the course? (As always, please remember to use examples from the text to support your arguments). For more information on Ethics read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

In order to get full credit for your original post, you need to clearly connect your responses to evidence from the book. Indicate the page number where you found the information.  Read chapter 2 from (Wilkens, S., & Padgett, A. G. (2018). Introduction to Philosophy: Christianity and the Big Questions. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press. Which philosophical position discussed in Chapter Two, “What Is the Meaning of Life?” comes closest to your own personal understanding of the “meaning of life,” the position of Sartre, Hegel, Rousseau, Boethius or Pascal?  Explain your choice in a detailed and well-developed,  brief essay. For more information read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meaning_of_life

Introduction to Logic questions1) Does the earth go around the sun or does the sun go around the earth?2) Is telling your child there are tooth fairies lying to your child?Length: 250 words each