Scepticism about the future’ (as in the example short-lived universe) is connected to the ‘grue problem’. Explain how.

/in /by

Scepticism about the future’ (as in the example short-lived universe) is connected to the ‘grue problem’. Explain how.

Is Socrates correct that good man can’t be harmed in life or death? in what sense is this true?

/in /by

At Apology (41d) Socrates says that a ‘good man is not harmed in life or death’. Throughout the dialogue he also discusses his ‘divine sign’ which prevents him from engaging in wrong doing. In another dialogue the Gorgias Socrates says that ‘doing what’s unjust is actually the worst thing there is’ and that it is better to suffer injustice then to do it (Gorg. 469b-c). These ideas seemed highly counter-intuitive to Socrates’ own audience and perhaps even more so to our own way of thinking. Since at least the time of Thomas Hobbes an emphasis has been placed on ‘self-preservation’ as a hallmark of rationality. Yet here in the Apology Socrates deliberately responds to the jury in a way that imperils his life. There are two questions here which can be taken in turn or separately. 1)Is Socrates being irrational in the way that he acts before the jury; would it have been more rational for him to act in another way(Apol. 36a-39e)? 2) Is Socrates correct that good man can’t be harmed in life or death? in what sense is this true? if at all? even if the good man is not harmed by others, could one be unjust to one’s self by not adequately defending oneself? is Socrates guilty of this sort of injustice as Crito seems to hint (Crito 45c-d)? Respond to any or all of the above and end your postifktng with a question of your own.

Do these definitions have any practical relevance? explain using examples from the dialogufktes and or your own experience.

/in /by

In the Euthyphro Socrates insists on the importance of definition. If one doesn’t know a things definition then one can’t know a thing. This requirement has led to the charge of the Socratic fallacy; one can use word properly (be a competent language user) without actually knowing the definition of a word. This issue is still a converted point in the literature. However, putting aside whether Socrates is committed to this fallacy given the events related in the Euthyphro and the Apology is Socrates correct to place such an emphasis on the definition of words? do these definitions have any practical relevance? explain using examples from the dialogufktes and or your own experience.

Identify and critically examine two-three challenges that teachers and other childhood professionals face in providing culturally sensitive education or services in a plural society.

/in /by

Taking a philosophical approach, identify and critically examine two-three challenges that teachers and other childhood professionals face in providing culturally sensitive education or services in a plural society.

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?

/in /by

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 problefktms do you see with any of the particular definitions?

Should abortion remain legal?

/in /by

Writing as a UTILITARIAN, choose one of the below four prompts and write an argument for or against the issue, just as you did in your first essay. Just use standard format and make sure I can open the document. (I often can’t open a doc.x, for whatever reason.) REMEMBER TO USE THE GUIDE “How to Test Utilitarian Principles” added as a handout on your previous assignment.

The Pledge of Allegiance was first written in 1892. It originally read: “I Pledge Allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands; one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” The Pledge became part of the US Flag Code in 1942, and in 1954 President Eisenhower and Congress added the phrase “under God” into the Pledge.

Proponents (THOSE IN FAVOR) of including “under God” in the Pledge argue that the US is a Christian nation, at least 80% of Americans support the phrase, the language reflects America’s civic culture and is not a religious statement, and federal law, state constitutions, currency, and the presidential oath already contain references to God.

Opponents (THOSE OPPOSED) contend that church and state should be kept strictly separate as the Founding Fathers intended. They argue that the Constitution protects minority rights against majority will, and that the words “under God” in the Pledge constitute a religious phrase and thus violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment (FREEDOM OF RELIGION, SPEECH, ETC.).
President Trump has refused to concede the election, and, instead, has mounted legal cases in several states. 25 of which have been dismissed out of hand as lacking any evidence of voter fraud. Some are asking for a complete disenfranchisement of thousands of votes without evidentiary standing, mostly in Black communities in Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Instead of conceding he is asking for donations from his constituents, most likely to amass money for his legal expenses. He plans, in three weeks, to announce his intention to run in 2024 (which is actually a form of concession, which many feel will then disenfranchise those Republicans who are considering their own run for president in 2024). Is this ploy utilitarian (there are actually two factors at work here)? Is it moral? How is it utilitarian or moral for the rest of the United States? Why or why not? You may have to do some reading to inform yourself and keep up to date!
Should prostitution be legalized? (This does not include child sex trafficking).
Should abortion remain legal? Many states have made it far more difficult for women to obtain abortions, and have effectively shut down numerous abortion clinics and Planned Parenthood clinics (women [and men] can visit these clinics for their cancer screening and breast exam needs at these Planned Parenthood clinics). About 3% of Plannfkted Parenthood’s procedures are abortions.

Discuss Searle’s theories of the mind and engage with his arguments.

/in /by

Discuss Searle’s theories of the mind and engage with his arguments. John Searle offers us some profound and creative ways to understand the nature of mind. One of the most interesting facets of our mental life is the “aboutness” of our thought, or what philosophers call “intentionality.” Talk about what this is and what this means metaphysically in Searle’s terms. Please include at least 4 quotes from the lecture transcripts provided, and 1 from the link below. The thesis doesn’t necessarily need to take a hard stance, as much as discussing and synthesizing the content and Searle’s ideas.

Explain how isolation from the world leads the imagination to prey upon the mind.

/in /by

Samuel Johnson: Rasselas, The Prince of Abyssinia

Prompt 1: Consider the role of the astronomer in Rasselas. Explain how isolation from the world leads the imagination to prey upon the mind. How is it that we can only have a productive, meaningful life by being directly involved in the living world?

Prompt 2: In Rasselas, Johnson asserts that: “Marriage is evidently the dictate of nature; men and women were made to be companions of each other, and therefore  cannot be persuaded but that marriage is one of the means of happiness.” How do these attitudes about marriage compare to Rape of the Lock?

Explain and analyze ONEof the following three passages from Nietzsche’sTwilightoftheIdols.

/in /by
PhilosophicalThinkingTake-hometest3YoucansubmityourworkatanytimeoverthenextweekDUE:Inyourownwords,interpret,explainandanalyzeONEofthefollowingthreepassagesfromNietzsche’sTwilightoftheIdols.RememberthatwhatIamlookingforaboveallisevidenceofunderstandingthematerial,andofthoughtfulresponsetoit.Requirements:Thinkforyourself.Choosethepassageyouwilldiscusswithcare,andbesuretoaddressitasfullyasyoucan,bothwhatthequoteitselfsaysandalsoitscontextandroleinTwilightoftheIdols.Discussandanalyzetheinsights,ideasandphilosophicalpositionputforwardbyNietzsche.Youmayalsowishtocriticizehisviews,fromyourownperspective,butIrecommendyoudosoonlyafterpresentinghisideasasfaithfullyasyoucan;also,itisgoodpracticetotrytoimaginehowNietzschewouldhaverepliedtoyourcomments.Pleaseuseastandardfont,suchasTimesNewRomanorCalibri(12point),doublespaced.Writeincompletesentences,andindistinctparagraphs.Pleasesubmityouranswerbypastingthecontent(fromMSWord,please–notpdf)intothespaceprovidedonBlackboard.Iwouldaskthatyounotpostalinktoanexternaldocument..Attheconclusionofyourentry,aspertheAUCHonorCode,pleaseincludethefollowingstatement,followedbyyourname,typedoutinfull.Say what you have to say, and say it as wellas you can. Some people take more words to do that than others. Your grade will be based on what yousay, not how many (or how few) words it takes you to say it. (Let me add, though, from long experience,that unusually short answers rarely if ever earn high grades. I am expecting you to put real effort intothis.) As a guideline, let me suggest a range of 800-1400 words.This is not a research paper; the use of any outside sources is strongly discouraged (even if propercitations, required for any use of such sources, are included). The aim here is for you to work through thechosen passage yourself, on your own, drawing on your skills in close reading and analysis. Both theinterpretation of the author’s views and your responses, comments and criticisms must be your own.Plagiarism, or other forms of cheating, will not be tolerated.You do not need to include the chosen passage in your submission, nor to directly quote it atlength. You may, if you choose, include brief quotations from other parts of Nietzsche’sTwilight of theIdols. If you do, please use the page numbers from our edition. Here’s an example of what your citationshould look like, inserted after the quote: (Nietzsche,Twilight, p. 61).Please note: the selected passages, below, have been lightly edited by me, for length and clarity.

Quote 1″Reason in Philosophy” §1-§2You ask me what’s idiosyncratic about philosophers? . . . There is, for instance, their lack of asense of history, their hatred for the very notion of becoming, their Egyptianism. They thinkthey’rehonoringa thing if they de-historicize it, see itsub specie aeterni[in its eternal aspect] —if they make a mummy out of it. Everything that philosophers have handled, for thousands ofyears now, has been conceptual mummies; nothing real escaped their hands alive. They kill andstuff whatever they worship, these gentlemen who idolize concepts—they endanger the life ofwhatever they worship. For them, death, change, and age, like reproduction and growth, areobjections—refutations, even. Whatever is does notbecome; whatever becomesisnot . . .Now they all believe, desperately even, in whatis. But since they can’t get it into their clutches,they look for reasons why it’s being withheld from them. “There has to be an illusion, a deceptionat work that prevents us from perceiving whatis; where’s the deceiver?”—”We’ve got thedeceiver!” they cry happily, “it’s sensation! These senses,which are so immoral anyway,deceiveus about thetrueworld. Moral: free yourself from the senses’ deceit, from becoming, fromhistory, from the lie—history is nothing but belief in the senses, belief in the lie. Moral: say no toeverything that lends credence to the senses, to all the rest of humanity; all that is just `themasses.’ Be a philosopher, be a mummy, portray monotono-theism with a gravedigger’spantomime!—And above all, away with thebody, this patheticidée fixe[obsession] of thesenses, afflicted with every logical error there is, refuted, even impossible—although it has thenerve to behave as if it were real!” . . .[… The senses] do not lie at all. What wemakeof their testimony is what first introduces the lie,for example, the lie of unity, the lie of thinghood, of substance, of duration . . . “Reason” is whatcauses us to falsify the testimony of the senses. Insofar as the senses display becoming, passingaway, and change, they do not lie . . . The “apparent” world is the only world: the “true world” isjustadded to it by a lie. . .Quote 2″Morality as Anti-Nature” §3-§6The spiritualization of sensuality is known aslove; it is a great triumph over Christianity.Another triumph is our spiritualization ofenmity. It consists in a deep grasp of the value ofhaving enemies . . . We behave no differently as regards the “inner enemy” . . . One isfruitfulonly at the price of being rich in oppositions; one remainsyoungonly under the condition thatthe soul not slacken, not yearn for peace . . . Nothing has become more alien to us than thatformer object of desire, “peace in the soul,” theChristianobject of desire; nothing makes us less

Explain your view about how animals should be treated, including what rights (if any) they have and why they do or do not have these rights.

/in /by

Write an essay of at least 750 words in response to each of the following questions (five essays total). In addition to the required references for each question, you should mention at least one moral theory at some point in each answer.

1. Explain your view about how animals should be treated, including what rights (if any) they have and why they do or do not have these rights. Include references to all four of the articles about animals from the textbook. You may also, but are not required to, reference ideas from McPherson’s article on ethical veganism. Defend your position with supporting and opposing arguments, which can include your own ideas as well as ideas from the readings. Be sure to address ways that our treatment of animals is similar to/different from our treatment of non-rational humans (such as young children or mentally disabled adults).

2. Under what circumstances (if any) is it morally permissible to disobey laws. Your primary references for this question should be Plato’s Crito and King’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail. Include both supporting and opposing arguments in support of your position. Although some people might think that these two readings take opposite positions, it is fine to show that they are actually in agreement ). How might your position about obeying the law be relevant to the issues raised in the articles in the ‘Injustice’ section of the textbook (Appiah, Cudd/Jones and Young)?

3. Is it permissible for a state/country to place restrictions on immigration? Fully explain your reasoning with supporting and opposing arguments, making substantial use of the articles by Miller and Huemer, which take opposite positions. Be sure to explain the reasoning behind any restrictions that you think it is appropriate for a government to place.

4. Under what circumstances, if any, should speech be restricted. Support your position with supporting and opposing arguments, and include substantial references to all four articles in the ‘Free Speech’ section of the textbook (Mill, Unterreiner, Lawrence and Golding).

5. Discuss the arguments for and against drug legalization and gun control with substantial references to the articles by Husak, Sher, Wheeler and DeGrazia, including discussion of the ways that the arguments given by each issue might be applied to the other. For instance, if potential harm to others is a reason not to decriminalize illegal drugs, is it also a reason to control or outlaw guns? Your position on each issue should be clear and defended with supporting and opposing arguments.