Category: Philosophy

December 7th, 2020 Chicago / Turabian, Philosophy Comments Off on Philosophy Questions

Philosophy Questions

Essay Questions (Choose one essays)
1.    How does the Logic of Aristotle undermine the kind of Relativism taught by the Sophists?

2.    Please explain Plato theory of the reality of intelligible Forms. Why or why not are the Forms helpful for understanding life and reality?

3.    What sort of defense could you mount against the attacks on Common Sense by Parmenides and Zeno? Can it be shown that the world of our sense experience is the real world? You will need to both explain Parmenides philosophy and ideas first and then agree/disagree and explain yourself. Or another a critique offered by another philosopher.

4.    Should Socrates have accepted Critos offer of escape? Focus on the pros and cons given in the Crito.  Explain Socrates reasons and why you believe he was either right or wrong in his views.

5.    Restate as clearly as possible an Atomists tries to defeat Parmenides and reconciles the one and the many.

6.    Explain the main issue surrounding Euthyphros claim that he knows piety and its demands on him.  Please make direct reference to Socrates questioning of Euthyphro.

7.    Please explain Aristotles Square of Opposition and how it relates to understanding statement and their validity.

8.    Please juxtapose Marx and Hegel. In what ways does Marx attempt to correct Hegel and why? Is it successful?

9.    Please explain some of the features of the Arabic Philosophical Tradition. Next, choose one of the major philosophers of that tradition (Al-Kindi, Al-Farabi, Avicenna and Al-Ghazali) and explain their philosophical contributions.

10.    Please explain the elements of Rene Descartes Method and whether it does indeed bring clear ideas. How is it supposed to work and what is it supposed to show?

11.    Please explain Immanuel Kants Critique of Pure reason and why it was supposed to save reason.

December 7th, 2020 MLA, Philosophy Comments Off on Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill

Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill

Immanuel Kant argues that autonomy, or the ability to self-govern or self-determine oneself, is the basis for morality and justice. In your paper, describe how Kant understands autonomy and why it is necessary for his concept of morality, personal responsibility, and justice. Next, explain how John Stuart Mill provides a philosophy, based on utility, that is opposed to Kants morality.  Afterwards, explain how both Kant and Mill might support or reject drug use according to their ethical systems. You may want to address concepts of self-harm, consent, enslavement, indirect vs. direct harm, negative vs. positive rights, paternalism, consequences vs. intentions, and etc., to name a few.  Finally, determine which side (pro or con drug use according to Kant and/or Mill) has the better argument; defend your position on drug legalization.

Your answer to the question must not only present your own considered opinion on the matter, but must be formulated so as to include at least:

1. a comparative examination of two or three different possible answers to the question;

2. a critical analysis of your own position which identifies potential weaknesses in the position and explains what makes that position nevertheless superior in some way to the others considered; and

3. specific reference to ideas, insights, and/or arguments presented by the philosophers assigned in the prompt.

December 7th, 2020 APA (edition "APA 6"), Philosophy Comments Off on Any topic (writer’s choice)

Any topic (writer’s choice)

Imagine someone subscribes to a conspiracy theory that it is not safe to vaccinate children. Does that person make some kind of epistemic and moral error in holding that belief? Aim to work out your own ideas by responding to one argument in each of the two readings you select. Be sure to consider and respond to objections to your argument. Readings to consider: Clifford, Hank Green, Crash Course Philosophy video on conspiracy theories, Shatmadari.

In your paper make sure you:

1. Have a thesisa claim you are arguing forand a thesis sentence near the start of the paper. Be sure your thesis gives a brief statement of your reasons for arguing as you do, e.g. In this paper, I will argue that reparations for slavery is just because…..”

2. Develop your own ideas by engaging with the arguments from several philosophy readings.

3.Try to set out the main argument of your paper in premise and conclusion form.

4.Give page citations (in brackets, e.g. Chan, 271) to all central ideas noted in the reading.

5.Have a WORKS CITED section at the end where you cite all the articles and resources you have used.

6.Consider objections to your thesis.

7.Respond as best as you can to the objections.

8. Have a conclusion in which you tell the reader what you have shown in the paper.

Shatmadari reading link: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/26/the-truth-is-rushing-out-there-why-conspiracies-spread-faster-than-ever

December 7th, 2020 APA (edition "APA 6"), Philosophy Comments Off on Rousseau social contract

Rousseau social contract

reflect upon the social contract. Outline in detail how Rousseau describes the state of nature and what must be transformed in order for the social contract to come into being. What does his account of the state of nature show about Rousseau’s beliefs about human nature? What do people gain and lose by entering into the social contract?

Next, analyze to what extent contemporary society and government resemble the social contract as Rousseau paints it. Have people in modern society given up natural liberty in order to attain civil liberty? What specific rights and privileges does/would civil liberty in a modern context entail?

December 6th, 2020 APA (edition "APA 7"), Philosophy Comments Off on Computing and communication technology in law enforcement

Computing and communication technology in law enforcement

You must (1) identify, comprehend, and resolve ethical issues/problems and their ramifications in a thorough and responsible manner, (2) describe the historical and cultural contexts of the issue, (3) determine the legal issues associated with the case study. Essay should be double spaced and 1000 words minimum. The instructions for the essay is attached in the outline.

December 6th, 2020 Philosophy, Undergraduate Comments Off on When the People You Love Dont Think Like You

When the People You Love Dont Think Like You

Facione & Gittens (2016) state, “Strong critical thinking about complex and difficult social policies demands that we respect those with whom we disagree” (p. 344). The authors of your text ask us to take seriously the points of view of those with whom we disagree.

Should I respect the point of view of a misogynist a person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against women?
Should I respect the point of view of a racist?
How about someone who believes marriage is only between one man and one woman?
How about someone who does not believe that humans are contributing to the conditions that cause climate change?
How about someone who denies that the Holocaust occurred?

Initial Post Instructions
For the initial post, pick one point of view from the five questions above that you find particularly repugnant one that you think is completely unjustifiable. If you were in conversation with such a person, how could you ethically respond to the statement of such a point of view? Keep in mind that you are expressing a value opinion, which requires ideological reasoning, so you may want to review Chapter 13.

As you form your response, keep in mind the following; these are things you need to think about but not necessarily to write about in your initial post:

Reflect if you are using System-1 or System-2 thinking? Are your responses tinged with cognitive bias?
Do you think there is a qualitative difference between believing some races are inferior and the belief that marriage should only be between one man and one woman?
Do you think there is a qualitative difference between not believing in human contribution to climate change and not believing in the Holocaust?

December 6th, 2020 Philosophy, Undergraduate Comments Off on critical thinking

critical thinking

Critical Thinking
Go back to your very first journal entry review your definition of critical thinking. After studying critical thinking for the past eight weeks, would you change your definition in any way? If yes, how and why? If no if it was perfect what parts of the text were best reflected in your definition?
Heart of the Matter
Recall in your first journal entry that you discussed the authors’ statement that the concepts in Chapters 12, 13 and 14 were “the heart of the matter.” After having studied those chapters, answer again, with renewed understanding, the question posed there: Why do you think the authors find these concepts important to critical thinking?
Ethical Decision-Making
The lecture claims that an argument is no good unless it has a “strong and reasoned ethical base.” Do you agree that ethics is an essential element of a good argument? If yes, why? If no, why not?
Looking Forward
Do you believe that you now know everything you need to know about critical thinking or is learning to think critically a life-long task? Explain your answer.

December 6th, 2020 Philosophy, Undergraduate Comments Off on what do I value

what do I value

At the very end of Chapter 13, there is a Group Exercise that asks: What ideals would you go to war to defend? We are not going to ask you to go to war, but we are going to ask you to think about what ideals or values you believe would be worth defending even to the point of risking your life in their defense.

When Nazi Germany overtook Europe in the early 20th Century, resistance movements sprung up in the occupied countries, and many civilians risked and lost their lives against Nazisim. Today, in Saudi Arabia, women who protested restrictions on the rights of women imposed by that country have been jailed, and remain jailed, even after some of the rights they asked for have been granted.

Initial Post Instructions
For the initial post, address the following:

What core values would you risk your life and freedom to defend?
Could a nation going to war be appropriate in certain circumstances or is war never an appropriate response?
This is not a group exercise post your thoughts, considering the scenarios proposed in the text or any others you find important. Be sure to give your reasons for your answer.

Notice that this exercise requires deductive reasoning. You are stating a position and supporting it with “top down” reasoning. Be sure to review Three Features of Ideological Reasoning. Apply these concepts as you create your own arguments and evaluate those of your peers.

Remember that you are using ideological reasoning here. Is your post structured like an ideological argument, beginning with a general idea (opinion, belief, or principle) and moving down from these abstractions to their specific applications?

The text warns us that ideological arguments often fail the test of Truthfulness of the Premises. Have you tested the truth of your premises?

Facione, P. A., & Gittens, C. A. (2016). Think critically (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson.

December 6th, 2020 Not applicable, Philosophy Comments Off on Digital Surveillance – Is it ethical?

Digital Surveillance – Is it ethical?

Your third essay should discuss either the issue of digital surveillance as presented in weeks seven and eight, or the idea of interveillance as it relates to social media introduced in weeks nine and ten.  You can take any position you like with regard to these issues and must develop an original idea.

Week 8 material: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63of4yrOvUY&feature=youtu.be
Week 9 material: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJxXYNawQWA&feature=youtu.be
Week 10 material: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZT86HXVayA8H_y5BWO6-bMcDEDtpqZ1c

December 6th, 2020 MLA, Philosophy Comments Off on What does Husserls method of phenomenology illuminate concerning the nature of the human situation?

What does Husserls method of phenomenology illuminate concerning the nature of the human situation?

Needs to explain Husserl’s method before going into its value.  Avoid discussion of work outside of Philosophy (Psychology, psychiatry, Medicine, etc.) claiming knowledge of ‘phenomenology.’  At the least, verify a correct understanding of Husserl is present.  In general, I would recommend avoiding discussing material from ‘social scientists’ who are not philosophers. you want proper quotations and paraphrases, and you want to work on displaying your knowledge of Philosophy.  That means dealing with the history of Philosophy, but it also means having a feel for what philosophical discourse is and what it expects. The paper main-topic asks you to discuss the value of insights developing from Husserl.  I would try to focus on, what you personally find valuable.  Of course, what you find valuable, can be prompted by what you read elsewhere as discussing implications of Husserl.  So, all things being equal, you ought to pursue the ‘implications’ of Husserl discussed in the assigned reading, as tied to what Husserl illustrates for us.  However, you may have some more definite idea, even something quite different than what is discussed as the implications of Husserl.  Nonetheless, I would advise staying away from anything to do with Husserl and ‘the body,’ as although many academics are excited about this topic, I have seen no evidence students at this level can hack that.  Likewise, to try to base your account of the philosopher, Edmund Husserl, primarily on writings from outside Philosophy, does not make sense, particularly if a truly philosophic approach is not taken an instead the focus is with something practical, like Medicine.  It can be good to use secondary sources to get ideas about what is valuable with Husserl, but take care in selecting sources appropriate for the course. Make sure you have a strong thesis statement.  Place your thesis statement in the first paragraph of your paper.  I advise, making it the first sentence.  Use ‘and,’ commands and semi-colons, etc., to fit all the thesis ideas into one, grammatical-sentence. Make sure your paper is organised around the thesis-statement. Work on displaying your knowledge of Philosophy