Answer the following question in about 300 words: In Euthyphro, Socrates asks his young interlocutor: “is the pious being loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is being loved by the gods?” How do you understand this question? Reformulate the same question in such a form that it applies not only to ethical (and religious) but also to theoretical (scientific) concepts.
If we join Hooke and Galileo together, they might tell us that with a “sincere Hand” and a ” faithful Eye” we should turn “to this great book of the Universe”, if we are to learn from it. Galileo further states that we should ” seek to investigate the true constitution of the universe– the most important and most admirable problem that there is.”
Both Galileo and Hooke claim to deliver new worlds to us when they set about investigating the true constitution of the universe. What had Galileo expected to see in the new world based upon the old pre-telescopic world? What had Hooke expected to see in the new world of putrefying matter based upon the old pre-microscopic conception of the world of putrefaction? State in some detail what each man does see and how it differs from expectations. For instance, what are Galileo’s discoveries that lead him to speak of the “false and inveterate idea that the heavenly bodies are devoid of all mutation or alteration”? In what way does Hooke consider even the mite to be a noble creature?
What beauty is there in rot? What may make the earth beautiful instead of being ” the sink of all dull refuse”?
Both Galileo and Hooke think their new discoveries confirm rather than deny a God who provides for His Creation. Present your thoughts on this matter.
Answer these two questions:
1) What are the best arguments against proportionalism? Consider the case of the man who must choose whether or not to tell his gravely injured wife the truth about her condition just before she goes into surgery (CMP 6C: 66-71): .
2) Explain how Ron DeSantis’s shipping of migrants across the country as a political stunt is an action governed by a consequentialist moral philosophy. Video and news story: . Commentary: .
Please see attached file. Read instructions and answer carefully. Questions #1 and #3 must include “truth tables.”
Choose three passages from the chapter attached and respond to it. First write down what it means then respond and write if you agree or not briefly and in simple language
Read pages 4-39. Response to Writing Prompts:
1. What did you learn about Kierkegaard that you found interesting?
2. You can choose one of these, so choose whichever you’re comfortable responding to. Number one is, what do you think of this understanding of the stages of life? Or the second possibility Have you ever had an experience of anxiety as Kierkegaard describes it?
3. Can you think of some things that we would be reluctant to do if we didn’t have faith in other people?
4. Kierkegaard claims that we inescapably live by faith. What do you make of this claim and why?
Everything must be in a question & answer format
I have attached the pages to the biographic in the book about Kierkegaard
Book : Classics of Western Philosophy: ONLY CAN CITE FROM THIS BOOK NO OUTSIDE SOURCES
This is a 500-1000 word paper and therefore an exercise in relevance as much as knowledge. Your paper should include a title, which is essential as it tells your reader what to expect. Therefore your title should not be generic or vague. Please use 12 pt Times New Roman font, 1 inch margins on both sides, top and bottom (I will notice); your paper should be double spaced.
A successful paper will be well organized, staying very close to the topic without extraneous detail, and will be expressed in ‘everyday’ language. It will clearly present, define and breakdown all relevant philosophical issues before moving into directed analysis. A strong specific thesis statement, which asserts your position on the topic, will be clearly defined, specific, and interesting. It should indicate, even in some small way, the direction your argumentation is heading. Your analysis will be well grounded with textual support and your evaluations in support of your thesis will be directly derived from the analysis of the text. There will be very few grammar, style or spelling mistakes. Transitions between concepts, ideas and sections of your paper will be seamless.
A word count must be included at the end of your paper.
Citations will be clear and a works cited page (not included in your page count) will be found at the back of the paper. Either in-text parenthetical citations or footnotes are acceptable. You can use whatever method of citation (MLA, APA, Chicago etc) is most comfortable, just make sure you USE them. A great formatting/citation/work cited resource can be found here: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/747/01/
You may only use sources from our class (textbook and class notes) for this paper. No outside sources are approved for this paper. I am much more interested in what you have to think and say about the concepts we are dealing with that just repurposing the arguments of others. Class notes should be cited using the appropriate format.
In this 500-1000 word paper, you will choose a position for a relevant philosophical question and develop an argument using textual support from one philosopher we have discussed in class. Remember you are arguing a point of view, not summarizing what the philosopher’s have to say. Your argument needs to be specific enough to formulate a complete answer via your thesis statement within the boundaries of the paper. As such, you must start with a contextual introduction ending with a specific thesis, an argument which explains the components of your thesis and explores their implications, supported by direct textual evidence from at least one philosopher we have read in class, and a conclusion summarizing your position. Remember a good argument weighs compelling evidence more heavily. Tell me the compelling evidence that will convince me your argument is strong.
Possible Pre-Writing Procedure:
What question am I answering?
What is the answer to this question in my own words?
Why is this the ‘best’ answer to this question?
What is the greater application of this answer?
What concepts are involved in this answer? What are my reasons for this answer? How do these concepts connect to one another?
What philosopher(s) can support my thesis and argument?
What context/explanation will this require?
Complete the highlighted sections enclosed in the worksheet. View each video enclosed to complete ALL sections.
The writing assignment is to engage in conversation with either Foucault’s Discipline and Punish or Bakhtin’s Rabelais and His World How does the author make his claim? What evidence does he use? How does he account for other critiques? What argument can you make with their text? Can you tease out a critique? Or push their argument in a new direction? Use significant evidence pulled directly from the text. Your publish should feature a central thesis that makes a strong claim of your own, one around which you will structure your paper. Make a clear, nuanced argument that goes beyond whether the author is “right” or “wrong.”
Things to keep in mind:
Be very clear about your audience. Who are they? Why should they care about this text and your argument? Do not assume they have read the material.
Be very clear about the structure of your argument. What are you building towards? What parts need to be in place and in what order?
Show, don’t tell. Your argument will be more persuasive if you carefully organize and describe evidence, rather than telling your audience how they should feel about it.
Pay close attention to contradictions or lack of clarity within the text, and ask which questions those issues raise. You do not necessarily need to answer them, but your own position on how they affect your interpretation should be clear.
Feel free to briefly introduce other texts—e.g. Mbembe, Hall et al., Bakhtin or Foucault (depending on which author you are already working with), or something from another class—in order to clarify your argument. But that reference should always drive the reader back to the central text. This should remain a close reading of one particular text.
Be sure to fully answer the questions. To fully answer questions it is better to have more information than less information. Remember, this is to help you get familiar with the work you are reading. Providing the shortest answer possible is not a helpful or prudent way to become familiar with the text. It is always best to elaborate on your answers.