Knowledge and Skepticism Essay Paper

Knowledge and Skepticism

Choose one of these aforementioned responses to skepticism Moore’s commonsense realism or externalism explicate and analyze the theory, and then critically evaluate whether you think Bonjour is correct in his assessment of the theory.

Second Essay Assignment: Philosophy 2500G

In his chapter Knowledge and Skepticism (pages 245-46), BonJour summarizes why contemporary responses to skepticism, including Moore’s commonsense realism and philosophical externalism, fail to overcome the threat of skepticism Moore for giving too absolute a weight to common-sense intuition, and the externalist for providing at best a hypothetical response to the skeptic.

BonJour goes further, suggesting that neither of these responses (theories) has any real chance of doing any better than traditional Cartesian epistemology in meeting the challenge of skepticism.

First essay topic

Second Essay Topic

Write a paper on Wittgenstein’s On Certainty, explaining why it might be said that Wittgenstein’s unique form of philosophical writing, involving as it does diagnosis and elucidation rather than refutation, provides a response to the challenge of skepticism.

Here are some questions you should keep in mind in writing your paper:

Does your paper have a clearly articulated thesis?
Is the thesis supported by arguments?
Are these arguments logically structured?
Do you make use of the primary texts in defending your thesis?
Have you anticipated potential criticisms of your position and demonstrated why your position is superior to rival interpretations?
Is your writing clear and to the point?
Is your writing technically flawless, free of spelling mistakes and grammatical errors?
Do you have proper documentation in a consistent style?

We can write this or a similar paper for you! Simply fill the order form!

Kant`s Ethics Research Paper Assignment

Kant`s Ethics

While Kant`s ethics are based on intentions and decisions and seem to quite nicely accommodate the commonly held view that a morally good person is a person with the best intentions, Kant`s ethics also seem to imply that the consequences of our actions don`t matter. Provide your best argument for whether or not what is morally good ought to be based on intentions or consequences.

Your assignment must follow these formatting requirements:

Be typed, double spaced, using Times New Roman font (size 12), with one-inch margins on all sides; citations and references must follow APA or school-specific format. Check with your professor for any additional instructions.
Include a cover page containing the title of the assignment, the student’s name, the professor’s name, the course title, and the date. The cover page and the reference page are not included in the required assignment page length.

We can write this or a similar paper for you! Simply fill the order form!

Philosophy justification for punishment Paper

Philosophy justification for punishment

1) What is the justification for punishment? Explain how a utilitarian, a retributivist, and a teleological retributivist might each answer this question.

Your assignment must follow these formatting requirements:

Be typed, double spaced, using Times New Roman font (size 12), with one-inch margins on all sides; citations and references must follow APA or school-specific format. Check with your professor for any additional instructions.
Include a cover page containing the title of the assignment, the student’s name, the professor’s name, the course title, and the date. The cover page and the reference page are not included in the required assignment page length.

We can write this or a similar paper for you! Simply fill the order form!

John Locke and acquiring property ownership

there are 2 options to write on. i would like for the paper to be on option number 1. i will link a docx file with the 2 prompts. The correct prompt will be prompt #1, which has to with John Locke and acquisition of property.

David de Bruijn

Write a 4 to 5 page paper (double-spaced; 12 pt.; standard margins) on one of the two arguments below. Note that whether or not you agree with the argument sketched in the prompt, you should consider how someone would respond to the object. (In other words: if you agree with the argument in the prompt, you must defend it from some objection).

(1) Locke:

In a central passage of his Second Treatise of Government (§27), John Locke develops a theory of how a person can come to legitimately acquire property:

[Everyone] has a property in his own person; this nobody has a right to but himself. ‘The labour of his body and the work of his hands we may say are properly his. Whenever someone, by his labor, changes a thing from its natural state [to make it more useful] he ‘mixes his labor’ with it. He ‘thereby makes it his property’, for ‘it hath, by this labour, something annexed to it that excludes the common right of other men’.

In response, critics of Locke have argued that this passage cannot explain how labor leads to ownership. After all, consider mixing a drink with a large body of water: surely this does not lead to ownership of all the water. So why would “mixing labor” lead to property ownership?

In this paper consider this objection to Locke. Are the critics right? How might Locke defend himself?

(2) Nozick/Rawls:

From Nozick’s perspective, the Wilt Chamberlain example provides a powerful argument against Rawls. For Nozick, no one can claim injustice if only Chamberlain benefits from the voluntary sale of tickets: not those individuals who buy the tickets; nor those individuals who are not involved and do not benefit from the sale. Accordingly, for Nozick the core flaw in Rawls’s thinking is that individuals have the right to do with their property whatever they choose to.

Is Nozick right? How might Rawls defend himself against the idea that no individual could complain about the way only Chamberlain benefits from the sale of tickets, and no one else? (It may be helpful here to consider what Rawls shares in common with Rousseau’s view of property).

We can write this or a similar paper for you! Simply fill the order form!

Philosophy Justification for Punishment

Philosophy Justification for Punishment 1) What is the justification for punishment? Explain how a utilitarian, a retributivist, and a teleological retributivist might each answer this question.

Retributive justice, response to criminal behavior that focuses on the punishment of lawbreakers and the compensation of victims. In general, the severity of the punishment is proportionate to the seriousness of the crime. Retribution appears alongside restorative principles in law codes from the ancient Near East, including the Code of Ur-Nammu (c.2050 BCE), the Laws of Eshnunna (c. 2000 BCE), and the better-known Babylonian Code of Hammurabi (c. 1750 BCE). In those legal systems, collectively referred to as cuneiform law, crimes were considered violations of other people’s rights.

We can write this or a similar paper for you! Simply fill the order form!

Chinese Philosophy Research Assignment

Chinese Philosophy

Bryan W. Van Norden, Introduction to Classical Chinese Philosophy
Philip J. Ivanhoe and Bryan W. Van Norden, eds., Readings in Classical Chinese Philosophy, 2nd Edition

From these two texts, critically think and to both summarize and say something non-obvious about at least one if not two or three of the assigned texts. Focusing on Kongzi, Mozi, Yang Zhu and Mengzi

Your assignment must follow these formatting requirements:

Be typed, double spaced, using Times New Roman font (size 12), with one-inch margins on all sides; citations and references must follow APA or school-specific format. Check with your professor for any additional instructions.
Include a cover page containing the title of the assignment, the student’s name, the professor’s name, the course title, and the date. The cover page and the reference page are not included in the required assignment page length.

We can write this or a similar paper for you! Simply fill the order form!

Explain Sam Argument from After Death Conceivability

Explain Sam Argument from After Death Conceivability Knowledge and Reality

Goals:

Learn how to explain complicated philosophical material clearly and in your own words.
Improve your ability to communicate complicated material to someone not already familiar with that material, so that they could learn that material from you.
Learn how to state a novel, plausible philosophical position.
Improve your ability to state a novel position on a complex topic and provide a plausible justification for that position that a reasonable person who did not already accept it would need to consider.

Explain Sam Argument from After Death Conceivability Instructions

Write an essay of approximately 750 words (no less than 730 words and no more than 770) answering ONE of the following questions.
It should be possible for an intelligent reader, who knows nothing of the material, to learn and understand the argument you have chosen to explain from reading your essay.
Be sure to explain the necessary background material in your own words. (Do NOT simply repeat material that has been presented on lecture slides or in your recitation.)
In stating your novel position, be sure to express your ideas sufficiently clearly that a reader could understand your position from what you have written.
Be sure to number your pages.
Be sure to cite your evidence for your attribution to the philosopher you have chosen (either giving a page number for his text or citing the date of the class lecture).
Bring a paper copy to lecture. Include your name, your TA’s name, and the day and time of your section on the BACK of the last page of your paper for anonymous review.
You must upload an electronic copy to Turnitin on Blackboard to receive credit for your paper.

Explain Sam Argument from After Death Conceivability

Explain Sam’s Argument from After-death Conceivability. Then either state what you take to be the best reason to think that the first premise is plausible OR the best reason to think it is not plausible. (Note: You will need to provide a novel reason. Do not simply repeat a reason given either in your lecture or in your section.)
Explain Sam’s Argument from Introspection. Then explain which theory of Personal Identity Sam must presuppose for his argument to be successful and why his argument must presuppose it.

We can write this or a similar paper for you! Simply fill the order form!

Weber’s idea of what a “fact” is with that of Durkheim

Contrast Weber’s idea of what a “fact” is with that of Durkheim. Spend not more than ½ a page talking about Durkheim.

Consider Weber’s discussion of “Ideal Type” from the Protestant Ethic, and his discussion of values from the Methodology.

Read the Grabb text and reference it. http://fs2.american.edu/dfagel/www/Class%20Readings/Weber/weber_on_methodology_of_social_sciences.pdf

http://fs2.american.edu/dfagel/www/Class%20Readings/Weber/weber_on_methodology_of_social_sciences.pdf

Your assignment must follow these formatting requirements:

Be typed, double spaced, using Times New Roman font (size 12), with one-inch margins on all sides; citations and references must follow APA or school-specific format. Check with your professor for any additional instructions.
Include a cover page containing the title of the assignment, the student’s name, the professor’s name, the course title, and the date. The cover page and the reference page are not included in the required assignment page length.

We can write this or a similar paper for you! Simply fill the order form!

Why is there something rather than nothing

An odd question, perhaps?
Leibniz said it was the first question of metaphysics. He maintained that after all the speculation about the nature of the universe, whatever it may be, there is still this fundamental question. It has been taken up at “Cosmic Variance” (Discover Magazine’s science blog) more than once. This was the most recent. There are a variety of comments that show up on the blog. Take a look and see how they have been addressing the question.
https://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil100/leibniz.html
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2012/04/28/a-universe-from-nothing/#.XJ0pcNFJmRt

We can write this or a similar paper for you! Simply fill the order form!

The Principal Philosophers in Classical Greece

The Principal Philosophers in Classical Greece 1100 word count and 3 scholarly sources in APA format

Who were the principal philosophers in classical Greece, and what was their influence on classical philosophy?

How did the Peloponnesian War impact Athens and the other Greek poleis in the Hellenic Age?

Define tragedy and comedy, and explain what the popularity of Athenian theater teaches us about the city, its people, and their interests. Ancient Greek philosophy extends from as far as the seventh century B.C. up until the beginning of the Roman Empire, in the first century A.D. During this period five great philosophical traditions originated: the Platonist, the Aristotelian, the Stoic, the Epicurean, and the Skeptic.

We can write this or a similar paper for you! Simply fill the order form!