Moral PhilosophyImmanuel Kants Method of Evaluation Explain Immanuel Kant’s method of evaluating whether an action is right or wrong.
Moral Philosophy Immanuel Kants Method of Evaluation
Explain the difference between acting for the sake of duty and acting in accordance with duty.
Explain the difference between a categorical imperative and a hypothetical imperative. What are the two versions of the categorical imperative that we looked at?
Choose one of the duties Kant discusses (not to kill yourself, not to make lying promises, benevolence, and developing your talents).
Explain his reasoning why his universalizing method leads to the result he suggests.
The Individual and Theodicy Essay Assignment 1 source on Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s book called: Introduction to the Philosophy of History.
The Individual and Theodicy Essay Assignment
Please see the important notices below on essay submission.
Please submit also (but do not count as part of the word count) your plan for the essay. It can take the form of a 3×3 plan, as discussed in class, and as used in the examples available on the Moodle page for the course, but it can take another form if you wish.
Note again: this plan does not count as part of the 3,000 words.
Essays without a plan will not be accepted.
Please use The Chicago Manual of Style to verify that you are punctuating and paragraphing correctly.
Punctuation errors or lack of paragraphs will lead to significantly lower marks.
Other books available in the library which you might use are:
Keys for writers by Ann Raimes et al.; The Little, Brown essential handbook by Jane E Aaron; A writer’s resource: a handbook for writing and research by Elaine P Maimon et al.; Writing from A to Z: the easy-to-use reference handbook by Sally Barr Ebest.
Please answer the question asked. General essays which do not specifically address the question will receive very low marks, as being off topic.
Discuss and Critique One of these Topics 1) Discuss Edmund Husserl’s criticism of Brentano in ‘Consciousness as intentional experience’
Discuss and Critique One of these Topics
2) Discuss Adolf Reinach’s understanding of the apriori OR his criticism of Kant in ‘Concerning Phenomenology’
3) Discuss the role of inter-subjectivity for the constitution of the body in Stein’s On the Problem of Empathy
4) Discuss the extent to which EITHER Simone de Beauvoir, Martin Heidegger OR Emmanuel Levinas can be characterized as phenomenologist. Are you searching for a great topic for your psychology paper? Sometimes it seems like coming up with a good idea for a paper is more challenging than the actual research and writing.
Final Paper is a philosophical analysis of the same bioethical issue from your presentation, which is from the content of the second half of the semester (Levine’s book), based on ethical theories studied in class, 5-7 full pages, double space, font Times New Roman, 11 or 12, with 1” margin on all sides.
You can carry on your philosophical analysis of the side you chose in your presentation, either the YES or the NO side, but you cannot repeat the same thing that you had in your presentation. Final Papers should focus on philosophical analysis of arguments (of the side you chose) based on ethical theories we studied in class. Students should also choose an outside, scholarly source on their topic and integrate their findings in their paper. Please follow MLA. Deadline is December 2, Sunday, night.
You should upload your Final Paper on Turnitin the way you did for all other course work. All files should be MS Word and file name should have your full name and the course work. If I were to submit it, my file name would be YunusTuncel-FinalPaper.do
We can write this or a similar paper for you! Simply fill the order form!
Ideological Conflict Belief and Philosophy Essay Question:
In trying to help rival groups (e.g. Israelis and Palestinians) make peace, what is the best approach to take to their rival narratives of the conflict?
Ideological Conflict Belief and Philosophy Citation style
The Oxford University Standard for Citation Of Legal Authorities (OSCOLA) is to be used for footnotes and the bibliography.
II – Structure
1. Introduction
♣ Cut to the chase right off by saying what the specific problem of the essay is and why it is a problem.
Ideological Conflict Belief and Philosophy
“People call sexual practices perverse all the time, but it is hard to figure out what the criteria for perversion are and what difference it makes whether those practices are perverse or not.”
♣ Avoid long-winded, flowery and vague introductions such as: “Philosophy has been studied for a long time….”
♣ Give your thesis up front, saying in the first paragraph exactly what position you’re going to be arguing for.
♣ Set out how you understand and will use the key terms in your essay, especially any that are used in the question itself.
2. Argument. Go for a methodical, point-by-point presentation. The reader should know in each part of the essay what the essay is trying to prove, and how it is trying to prove it.
(The reader should be able to use all of his or her brain-power learning from the essay and assessing whether its arguments are plausible—and should be able to spend no brain-power trying to figure out what the essay is trying to prove.)
3. All essays should include critical evaluation of the topic under discussion. It’s not enough just to describe what others have said. By the end the readers should understand the arguments that have led you to your own conclusions about the topic.
4. Conclusion. Avoid glib conclusions such as “this is a very difficult subject” and “there are arguments on both sides”. Your reader knows that, especially as you should have presented just those arguments. Your conclusion should be a considered response to the arguments you have given, challenged and evaluated.
At this point, don’t be afraid to give your own personal response to the question, so long as it is based on and follows from the material you have discussed. The examiner does want to see that you have engaged with the material rather than simply regurgitated it.
III – Style and economy
1. Clarity is the main virtue of a philosophy essay. It’s better to write a clear boring essay than a muddled entertaining one.
2. Simplicity: Simpler words and short sentences are often clearer. Don’t go for fancy terms or complex sentences unless you absolutely have to. (Note: One almost never has to.)
3. Define the essay’s main terms with precision early on (you may have done this in the introduction).
a. E.g. “Act utilitarianism is the thesis that an action is right if and only if it is the action that produces the most utility.”
4. Focus: Don’t lay out more of a view than you need to. There are no marks for simply repeating everything you know about a subject. On the contrary, there are ‘higher skills marks’ available for knowing how to leave out irrelevant material.
a. E.g. if your problem is that utilitarianism may be too demanding, you may not have to discuss in the essay the different interpretations of what utility is (whether there is a distinction between higher and lower pleasures, etc.).
Ideological Conflict Belief and Philosophy Focus Questions
Focusing appropriately on the question at hand is one of the best ways to get marks in philosophy. Meandering aimlessly is a very fast way of losing them.
5. Depth: Go in depth concerning the problem specified by the essay topic; you don’t need to say everything about everything. Better to explore one subject in detail than two subjects superficially.
6. If you’re arguing against someone’s position, present your opponent’s arguments as sympathetically as possible. Your arguments are only as strong as the arguments they defeat.
7. These essays may not need to use many (or even any) quotes from the readings.
8. Very rarely will you need to discuss the work of more than two or three philosophers in any detail in an essay. It is better to pick representatives of the positions you are discussing and evaluating these in depth than to rattle off a dozen names that you barely mention again.
9. Avoid starting sentences by ‘I feel’ or ‘I believe.’ The point of the essay is to convince others using good arguments, not simply to express oneself.
10. Avoid sweeping and unsupported statements that may be controversial, e.g., “There are no right answers in morality”.
SEE I Method Focusing On Issues Involving Philosophy Use the SEE-I method and focusing on issues involving philosophy (i.e. metaphysics=theory of reality, epistemology=theory of knowledge, ethics=theory of good/right and bad/wrong).
SEE I Method Focusing On Issues Involving Philosophy
NOTE: you must support your writing with concepts from the text (or the discipline of philosophy) and explore implications.
QUESTION 1: Judaism
Identify the key concepts (at least 3) of the Jewish faith.
QUESTION 2: Christianity:
Summarize the central beliefs (at least 3) of Christianity
QUESTION 3 – Islam:
. Summarize the central beliefs (at least 3) of Islam.
QUESTION 4: – Judaism and Islam
Compare and contrast how religious beliefs (concepts) impact (implications) the concept of marriage.
SEE-I METHOD
IDENTIFY EACH LETTER WHEN ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS
• S: State it
• E: Elaborate (explain it more fully, in your own words)
• E: Exemplify (give a good example)
• I: Illustrate (give an illustrations: maybe a metaphor, a simile, and analogy, a diagram, concept map, etc.
Genealogy of the Selected Theory Will be a genealogy of the selected theory.
Genealogy of the Selected Theory
The student will describe the major ideas and tenets of the theory and identify the scholar(s) associated with this theory and its philosophical precedents. You may also choose to add your own analysis of the theory, including why you chose this theory and why you think it is a valid (or invalid) theory. The inaugural issue of Genealogy invites essays on the topic, “What is Genealogy?”. The goal of the issue is to offer an introduction to genealogy studies, which is unprecedented in its scope; highlighting the contributions that genealogical theory and methods can make to an interdisciplinary array of research interests. Contributors are asked to explain how genealogical research and/or theory pertains to their discipline or sub-discipline (answering the question “What is Genealogy?”, as viewed from this disciplinary standpoint). The inaugural issue also seeks to provide a more rigorous theoretical foundation for genealogy studies and invites contributions that aim to strengthen the theoretical and/or epistemological framework for genealogy studies.
Now that you’ve read about Nietzsche and other existentialist philosophers, respond to one of these quotations in our usual fashion:
1. “There is something infantile in the presumption that somebody else has a responsibility to give your life meaning and point… The truly adult view, by contrast, is that our life is as meaningful, as full and as wonderful as we choose to make it.” — Richard Dawkins
2. “I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.” — Umberto Eco
3. “The world is, of course, nothing but our conception of it.” — Anton Chekov
4. “Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies.” — Friederich Nietzsche
The Persistence of Marxism Research Paper Text book
Soccio, Douglas J Archetypes of Wisdom 7th or 8th edition
The Persistence of Marxism Research Paper
1. “If anything is certain, it is that I myself am not a Marxist.” — Karl Marx
2. “Marxism is the opium of the intellectuals.” — Edmund Wilson
3. “If you are in Brazil and you grew up in a right-wing dictatorship, you think Marxism is liberating. But if you grew up in Czechoslovakia, and the Soviet Union is controlling everything and killing people, then you think capitalism is liberating. Neither of those two things are true and it doesn’t take a lot brains to understand this.” — Jose Padilha
4. “I would say that all traditional philosophies up to and including Marxism have tried to derive the ‘ought’ from the ‘is.’ My point of view is that this is impossible; this is a farce.” — Jacques Monod
Introspection Illusion Plato and Augustine 1. General Theme
Introspections
2. Justification
I chose this theme because it is relevant in my daily interactions with other people, but more so, it is relevant when describing Plato.
Introspection Illusion Plato and Augustine
Throughout this course I have found myself wondering why Plato presents ideas the way that he does, why does he think that his ideal conditions are THE ideal conditions for everyone. He seems to brush off any criticism in a way that says “I am right, you’re wrong but you don’t have the knowledge to know any better” I believe this is the reason he is unable to differentiate his ideas of timocracy and tyranny. I intend to argue that these are one in the same.
3. Philosopher(s) to be discussed
Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, Augustine, Descartes
I would like to discuss Socrates because he was Plato’s teacher. It is important to understand the lessons Socrates taught Plato in order to evaluate Plato’s philosophy. I am also choosing to include Aristotle because he was Plato’s pupil who offered a critical and intimate perspective on Plato’s teachings. Augustine’s relation of prayer to introspection. Descartes introspection of “I think therefore I exist.”
Research Question on Introspection Illusion Plato and Augustine
Was Plato’s introspection illusion so extreme that his ideas were clouded by his personal experiences and unable to see past his own reality?
5. Outline Example
I. Introduction
II. The Main question: Was Plato’s introspection illusion so extreme that his ideas were clouded by his personal experiences and unable to see past his own reality?
III. Comparison of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and my views on how they are hypocrites.
IV. Contemporary views on how timocracy and tyranny are the same things as an example of contradiction.
V. Conclusion
Introspection Illusion Plato and Augustine Required Sources
Augustine, Confessions (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992)
Descartes, R. Philosophical Essays and Correspondence (Indianapolis: Hackett, 2000)
Plato, Five Dialogues: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Meno, Phaedo (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1981)
Additional Source Possibilities
Apel, K.-O. “The transcendental conception of language/communication and the idea of a First Philosophy: Towards a critical reconstruction of the History of Philosophy in the light of Language Philosophy” in Selected Essays. Atlantic Highlands: Humanities Press, 1994, pp. 85-90.
Bordo, S. (Ed.) Feminist Interpretations of René Descartes. University Park, Pennsylvania State University Press, 1999.
Brown, P. Augustine of Hippo. Berkeley, University of California Press, 1969.
Cottingham, J. Descartes. London, Routledge, 1999
Frede, M. “Plato’s Arguments and the Dialogue Form” in Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy (Supplementary Vol. 1992: “Methods of Interpreting Plato and his Dialogues”). Oxford: Clarendon, 1992, pp. 201-219.
Nozick, R. The Examined Life. Philosophical Meditations, New York, Touchstone Books, 1989.
Wills, G. Saint Augustine. New York: Penguin, 1999.