Chopin and Gilman are both writing about women’s experiences with self-determination or agency. Why/how do the experiences of the protagonists figure into realism/naturalism from the period?

/in /by

Page 1: Short answer
Choose 1 prompt and answer fully. Make sure you use direct evidence from the texts and cite your evidence in MLA formatting.

1.“To Build a Fire” is a very clear example of realist/naturalist writing. “The Yellow Wallpaper” seems like a stark departure from such a model. Make an argument where you choose a defining characteristic of naturalism and locate an example from each text. Make sure you have a topic sentence, evidence, analysis, and conclusion.

2. Chopin and Gilman are both writing about women’s experiences with self-determination or agency. Why/how do the experiences of the protagonists figure into realism/naturalism from the period? Be sure to use evidence from both texts. Make sure you have a topic sentence, evidence, analysis, and conclusion.

Page 2 Discussion
Please respond to the following prompt with 100-150 words. Then respond to one other post by a classmate with 50-100 words.
How do jobs/labor intersect with gender in Gilman or Chopin? What does this communicate about labor/job and personal identity?

What is Socrates’ argument in Plato’s dialogue, Ion, that poetry is not a form of knowledge? Critically evaluate its strengths and weaknesses.

/in /by
Philosophy
Poetry as a Form of Knowledge?

What is Socrates’ argument in Plato’s dialogue, Ion, that poetry is not a form of knowledge? Critically evaluate its strengths and weaknesses.

What is the Euthyphro Problem? Should theists say that God is a good-maker or a good-tracker?

/in /by
What is the Euthyphro Problem? Should theists say that God is a good-maker or a good-tracker? What is the biggest problem with the answer you’ve chosen? In your view, what does the Euthyphro Problem show us about God and ethics?

Finally you should adjudicate. Is the original argument or objection ultimately successful and the best response available a failure? Is the argument or objection sunk? Or can the argument or objection be successfully defended against the best available critique?

/in /by

4-6 pages maximum length, double spaced, 11 point font
COMPOSITION: Each question asks you to set out an argument (or an objection — but objections are of course themselves just a certain kind of negatively-intended argument).
Your reconstruction should clearly identify and distinguish the argument’s or objection’s various assumptions, it should clearly explain the inferences made in that argument or objection, and it should also clearly set out the intended conclusion of that argument or objection.
Each question also asks you to present a ‘reasoned evaluation.’ A ‘reasoned evaluation’ will involve raising one or two of the best objections you can to the argument under consideration, or alternatively, one or two of the best replies to the objection under consideration. (The objections or replies might be original to you, drawn from your reading of the secondary literature [with appropriate credit given], or they might come from class discussion etc.)
Finally you should adjudicate. Is the original argument or objection ultimately successful and the best response available a failure? Is the argument or objection sunk? Or can the argument or objection be successfully defended against the best available critique? Grading is based on accuracy, completeness, and philosophical acuity of the essay considered as a response to the question posed. Clear, precise writing is also essential.

(It is important to answer every part of the question; each successive part should be thought of as leading the essay writer step-by-step through the writing of a satisfactory short essay.)

2. In Berkeley’s Three Dialogues, the character Philonous (the spokesperson for Berkeley’s own immaterialist philosophy) argues that the heat that we immediately perceive by sense is “nothing distinct from” one or another kind of pain or pleasure, and therefore “can exist only in a thinking substance” (p.54-56 in our anthology Late Modern Philosophy).
He holds same is true of sensible cold (p.56), and then will extend the same sort of argument to tastes (p.57) and eventually to various of the other ‘secondary qualities’ as well (though these latter sections are not included in our anthology)

(i) Clearly and precisely reconstruct Philonous’s argument for the thesis that the heat and cold we immediately perceive are simply certain kinds of pleasure or pain, and hence can exist only in minds. What exactly does this thesis amount to, and how exactly does Philonous argue for it?

(ii) Explain how one might attempt (as Philonous does) to extend this kind of argument to show that certain other ‘secondary qualities’ (such as tastes and odors) can exist only in the mind.

(iii) Present a reasoned evaluation of Philonous’s argument regarding heat and cold. In the course of your reasoned evaluation, be sure to consider one or two objections to the argument and weigh their merits. In your view, does this argument ultimately succeed? Why or why not?

Why do you think it was so important to build such a complex and detailed infrastructure? Why do you believe it to be so important according to Vitruvius to understand other areas of learning to become a better architect?

/in /by

Explore the Sutori reading in the attachments and engage with the interactive media this will help in your overall understanding of Roman history. Answer one or more: Read about Roman engineering in your text and the resources provided. Why do you think it was so important to build such a complex and detailed infrastructure? Why do you believe it to be so important according to Vitruvius to understand other areas of learning to become a better architect?

Explain Mill’s response to the argument that utilitarianism diminishes human worth in making pleasure the only thing that is intrinsically good.

/in /by
  1. Explain what the principle of double effect is and why it applies in the lever but not the footbridge version of the trolley dilemmas.
  2. Explain the extent to which Kant’s categorical imperative permits one to tell a “white lie”, i.e. a lie based on good intentions.
  3. Explain Mill’s response to the argument that utilitarianism diminishes human worth in making pleasure the only thing that is intrinsically good.
  4. Explain the difference between instrumental and intrinsic goods, and provide an example of each.
  5. Explain the difference between first and second order desires in relation to the concept of autonomy in Kant.
  6. What is Bentham’s psychological hedonism, and how does it explain one’s going to work even when one wants to sleep in?
  7. With reference to at least three components of Bentham’s hedonic calculus, explain the extent to which utilitarianism permits one to tell a “white lie”, i.e. a lie based on good intentions.
  8. Explain why, according to Epicurus, we ought not to be afraid of death.
  9. Explain what teleology is and how it determines Aristotle’s use of the term “good”
  10. Explain how the principle of double effect can be applied to two cases other than the trolley dilemmas.

Should the full Senate Intelligence Committee report be released to the public? Should the Penetta review be released to the public?

/in /by

Test 2 Alternative Assignment

Directions: Watch the Frontline documentary Secrets, Politics and Torture. Then compose a two-page paper (typed, double-spaced, with 12-point font) that demonstrates your critical thinking skills. Make sure to provide good reasons, evidence, and/or examples to support your claims. The paper is worth 15 points (15% of your total grade for the course).

Some possible things that you could discuss:

  1. The burden of proof (Ch. 4): Many who support the use of torture claim that it is an effective means of acquiring accurate information. Is there sufficient evidence to support the claim that torture is an effective means of acquiring accurate information. Which side of the debate bears the burden of proof?
  2. Does the documentary fairly present and assess information, or does it seem biased?
  3. Expert opinion vs. non-expert opinion.
  4. Should those who ordered or engaged in the use of torture be held legally responsible? What about those who were responsible for the destruction of the “torture tapes”?
  5. Was the film Zero Dark Thirty a piece of propaganda? Did it help to mislead the American public about what really happened?
  6. Were the Senate Intelligence Committee’s findings compelling?
  7. Did it seem like partisan politics played a role (whether people were Democrats or Republicans)?
  8. Did members of the United States Government lie to the American people? If so, was it appropriate?
  9. Should the full Senate Intelligence Committee report be released to the public?
  10. Should the Penetta review be released to the public?
  11. Was it appropriate for the CIA to spy on the Senate Intelligence Committee?
  12. Was it appropriate for the Senate Intelligence Committee to print out portions of the Penetta review, remove it from a classified facility, and put it in a safe?
  13. Members of the Republican party predominately opposed the release of information about the United States use of torture. Almost every member of the Republican party also opposed the calling of witnesses and the introduction of new evidence at Trump’s impeachment inquiry? Do these examples provide enough evidence to support that claim that, by and large, members of the Republican party want to prevent important information from being released to American citizens?

What is the difference between an act being an actual cause versus a proximate cause of an injury? Give example.

/in /by

1-What is the difference between an act being an actual cause versus a proximate cause of an injury? Give example.

2-You are blamed for some act (e.g. shooting someone’s donkey). What’s the difference between offering an excuse for it vs. offering a justification for it? How is this difference reflected in the definition of blame?

3-The accused smokes a cigarette. When he’s finished, he throws the still-smoking remnant in dry brush. A few minutes after he leaves the area, a light breeze arises. The cigarette ignites the brush and burns down an adjacent copse of trees. Is the accused at fault for destroying the trees? More importantly, why would the accused be guilty or not guilty given what you’ve learned about causation and fault?

What is the difference between an act being an actual cause versus a proximate cause of an injury? Give example.

/in /by

1-What is the difference between an act being an actual cause versus a proximate cause of an injury? Give example.

2-You are blamed for some act (e.g. shooting someone’s donkey). What’s the difference between offering an excuse for it vs. offering a justification for it? How is this difference reflected in the definition of blame?

3-The accused smokes a cigarette. When he’s finished, he throws the still-smoking remnant in dry brush. A few minutes after he leaves the area, a light breeze arises. The cigarette ignites the brush and burns down an adjacent copse of trees. Is the accused at fault for destroying the trees? More importantly, why would the accused be guilty or not guilty given what you’ve learned about causation and fault?

What the impact of implement Bilingual education Program on learning second language In Iraqi schools.

/in /by

Consider this paper you have done as editing.
Be advise this paper needs to be used for my PhD portfolio. So it needs to be really good so that my committee accepted it.
1- A brief description on bilingual person and society.
2- A brief description on dual language programs i.e Bilingual Education Program.
3- The relationship between bilingual society and Bilingual Education Program. How that can help improve by lingual person or society.
4- Teaching second language in Iraq.
a- The education system
b- Who controls the teaching curriculum? Is it the teachers or the government?
c- What the impact of implement Bilingual education Program on learning second language In Iraqi schools.