philosophy

There are 6 (specific) requirements that must be fulfilled. However, you are ultimately responsible for choosing the topic and direction of your essay. There are obviously general requirements of any argumentative paper but I will add a rubric outline for argumentative papers below. If you muck up one of these, then expect big points off of your paper: 1. Find a movie, short story, documentary, or complex news item (not a one-page article but only investigative or in-depth pieces, check with me if you are unsure) to base your analysis around and focus your thesis. I have given you a few suggestions: the movie “Her” for Philo of mind or personal identity and “Minority Report” for free will. 2. You must present a philosophy of mind, personal identity, philosophy of religion, or free will topic. The purpose is to argue/explain, for example, a theory in the philosophy of mind or personal identity in terms of the movie “Her”. Examples: Functionalism, Substance Dualism, Memory Theory, etc… In this case, you would be arguing that the character Sam is a mind or how to interpret Sam as a person over time as a way to make the case that the theory you are advancing/arguing for is the best answer to the mind-body problem. 3. Include an objection to your view. Some possibilities: Could there be another theory that best explains our intuitions about thought experiments in the movie/show? Does your theory lead to some absurd consequences whether in real life or via the movie’s world? Is there a possible way to develop a contrasting view of the OSes from the behavior of one of the characters? 4. Include discussions of the thought experiments, ideas, philosophers found in the textbook and links given to you by the prof. 5. You must include one secondary source and provide a full works-cited page. (This means citing the articles we used IN CLASS, from the research, the textbook, and EC work). This also means you SHOULD be using the course material to help make your case in addition to the secondary source from the textbook. 6. Word Minimum: Roughly 1500 -1800 words (MINIMUM). It is permissible to go over the 1800 words if needed (no excuses about not knowing you could write more to fulfill the tasks). For more information on read this: 

Socrates and Buddha had some similar ideas and traits.  Write an essay defending this idea.  Give a few of Buddha’s basic ideas Socrates would probably agree with (focus here on the ideas Rahula presents in his first chapter) and then discuss whether it would be difficult for Socrates to follow the Eightfold Path.  Be sure to address all the aspects of the Path and to give support for your claims.  Are there any ways in which the two men are significantly different? Evaluation of the essays:  Essays are evaluated on a number of criteria including Evidence of a good understanding of the views under consideration Quality of the explanation of the views and their application to the new situation/question given Quality of arguments involved (this involves not only the giving of reasons and objection and response but also the quality of the writing as that affects how good an argument is) For more information on Socrates and Buddha read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=Socrates+and+Buddha&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go&ns0=1

Your response should be a minimum of 175 words total (approx. 50 words per question). Based on this week’s reading and activities, how would you define critical thinking? What are some characteristics of a critical thinker? What do you see as common barriers to critical thinking, and how might people overcome or avoid those barriers? Reflect on the learning activities, concepts, ideas, and topics covered this week. What is the most interesting activity or concept you learned this week? Mention any concepts that are still a bit confusing to you or that you have questions about.

Section 4.5 is on The traditional square of opposition.  And 4.6 is on the Venn Diagrams of the propositions that take the traditional standpoint.  Like I said in the intro, I’m going to do sec 4.6 first, and 4.5 seconds.  Here is some questions.1.  What is the difference in notation between the Venn Diagrams that adopt the Boolean standpoint and the Venn Diagrams that adopt the traditional standpoint?  There’s only one small difference.  Just draw it, or explain what it looks like, and explain what the new notation means.  2. Explain the logical relation between the ‘A’ and the ‘I’ propositions on a) the Boolean standpoint (look at the modern square) and b) the traditional standpoint (look at the traditional square).  Why are they different? 3. On the Traditional Square, the relation between the ‘A’ proposition and the ‘E’ proposition is said to be ‘contrary.’  Describe the contrary relation, and explain why it is different than the ‘logically undetermined’ relation on the modern square.  4. Draw (if you can) the picture of the Traditional square of opposition.  Label all the parts.  Familiarize yourself with the meanings of all the relations.  i will provide log in information for the online textbook for necesssry reference. 

2. Briefly describe the main parts of Plato’s 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?

What is mythic? For more information read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythic

This course has three written assignments that build upon one another and are designed to take you step-by-step through a process of writing a paper that identifies an ethical question, examines the context, issues, and arguments surrounding the question, and attempts to defend an answer to that question using strong moral reasoning. In the Week 1 assignment, “Ethical Question,” you chose an ethical question, provided an introduction, a position statement and supporting reason, and an opposing position statement and supporting reason. In the Week 3 assignment, “Applying an Ethical Theory,” you explained utilitarianism, deontology, or virtue ethics, including its core moral principle or ideal, and applied that theory to the topic by demonstrating how its principles would support a particular position on your ethical question. In this final written assignment, you will combine what you have done in these two exercises by examining an ethical issue and defending your own position on an ethical question regarding that issue. This final written assignment should be written in essay form with the following clearly labeled sections: Introduction Ethical Argument Explanation and Defense Objection and Response Conclusion The paper should be between 1,300 and 1,500 words, utilize three scholarly resources, and include a title page and reference page.

Complete the  A “Great” Composer A “Great” Composer – Alternative Formats table by doing and answering the following Compare any two (2) different historical periods that you have read about in this course: Medieval, Renaissance, Baroque, Classical, Romantic, and Contemporary. Who are all the most influential composers of the two periods? Why were they so influential? What are the hallmarks (unique characteristics) of the “styles” of each period and/or composer? Listen to work by each composer. Name the title of the piece and the composer you selected for each period. Do their works share any similarities? How are they different from one another? Think of a modern composer you think may have been influenced by the composers you chose composers. Write in complete sentences, to complete the  A “Great” Composer A “Great” Composer – Alternative Formats table. Use Microsoft Word and run a spell check/grammar check (under the “Review” menu in Word). Correct grammar and spelling will be part of your grade. Copy and paste your proof-read assignment into the Assignment DropBox (not the “Comments” Box.)

St. Augustine in the 5th Century held that we are free to make choices in life. This is the idea of free will. It may seem at first glance odd for a religious thinker to say that we have free will. After all, if God exists, then God created all things. God knows already what we will do. God can cause anything to occur. If we cause things to occur, that seems to be a limitation on the power of God and not make God all-powerful. There are also religious traditions that say that we have no free will. There are some theologians in Islam who seem to suggest that is true. In order for this line of reasoning to hold true, one would need to believe free will is an illusion and that we have no control over how we live our lives, but rather that we are puppets moving and acting due to God’s will and the powers of destiny and fate. And if this then in the case, how can we possibly be responsible for our actions? The considerations above show us to what degree our religious beliefs can shape us. For instance, someone who believes in free will may experience way more guilt than someone who believes we don’t have free will and thus isn’t responsible for the choices (and consequences) of the actions we take. Personal struggles with religion and ethics occur in many places, including in the healthcare arena. Consider the following: You are a nurse in a hospital. A 12-year-old was brought to the hospital by an ambulance. The parents have just arrived at the hospital. This 12-year-old has lost a large amount of blood and requires a transfusion. The parents happen to be members of a religion that believes that blood transfusions are immoral. They want to remove the child from the hospital and prevent the transfusion even if it means the death of the child. You have to decide whether or not you will participate in an action that violates the will of the parents and aid in providing blood for the child. If you choose to participate, and even if you are able to legally justify it, you have to think about the distress you are creating for the parents. If you refuse to aid here, you may be subject to retaliation from the hospital. What is the moral thing for the nurse to do here? Questions to answer: What would a divine command ethicist say is the moral thing to do here? Why would they say that? Do you agree with the divine command ethics? Why or why not? Evaluate what a natural law ethicist would say is right to do. Do you agree with them? Why or why not? Given what you said are the right things to do, what would an emotivist say about your positions and judgments? What role does subjectivity play here in determining what is ethical?

? Instructions Read the assigned reading from the chapter. Then choose ONE of the questions below to answer. Answer the question you chose in a response that is a minimum of 1-2 paragraphs. Be sure to explain your answers and give reasons for your views. You should cite the textbook and use brief quotations and summaries from the textbook in your response. Do NOT use any other sources besides the textbook. 1. What is the philosophical method? Have you used it? How? 2. What are some fundamental beliefs that are part of your philosophy of life? How do these beliefs influence your life? 3. Which of the four main divisions of philosophy interests you the most? What philosophical questions listed in this section (p. 6) would you most want to have answers to and why?Note: All journal entries must be submitted from a computer (not a mobile device) as attachments (in Microsoft Word format) in order to generate an originality report. Book Title: Philosophy Here and Now: Powerful Ideas in Everyday LifeEdition: Third (3rd)Author: Lewis Vaughn Publisher: Oxford University PressCopyright: 2018ISBN: 978-0-19-085234-4If you need something from the textbook let me know.