Philosophy

Does Socrates succeed in his defending himself from the charges made against him?  Why or why not?  Use passages from the assigned text to support your position.  What do you think of Socrates and his attitude during the trial?

Focusing on the concepts of critical thinking and belief perseverance. Think about the differences between and among common sense, science, and beliefs. Consider how the differences between common sense and science and the connections between common sense and beliefs relate to critical thinking and to being a scholar-practitioner in your area(s) of interest. Identify at least one strategy you might employ (or have employed) to ensure that you think critically in the presence of your personal belief system. Write a 150 to 200-word Explanation of the relationships between and among common sense, science, personal beliefs, and critical thinking. Next, explain the role each of these four elements plays in the practice of scholarship. Then, provide your own definition of belief perseverance and explain how it influences critical thinking. Finally, share at least one strategy that you might employ to ensure that you think critically in the presence of your personal belief system.

Describe key differences between a conservative and liberal. Which ideology do you agree with and why?  What role do political parties play in the law-making process? Why do political parties today have difficulty making compromises and solving problems?

A 4 page paper on Aristotle’s view and description of happiness in Nichomachean Ethics and how his definition is not inherently true. Must use 2 sources from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and mention at least one quote from Nicomachean Ethics. Due January 20, that’s the hard deadline. Must Include works cited page in MLA format, does not count as 4th page

5-7 page book review of Michael N. Nagler (2004) The Search for a Nonviolent Future: A Promise of Peace for Ourselves, Our Families, and Our World. The paper is split into three sections: 1 page description, 2-3 page analysis, 2-3 page response. Description: Summarize the author’s thesis or argument. Analysis: In your analysis you might want to consider the questions (amongst others): What philosophical positions does the author take? How does the author justify her/his argument? Are the author’s premises true, probable, or plausible? Is the argument of the book sound? Are there historical comparisons? What was the context of the writing? Which other philosophers have taken a similar/opposite view to the author? (Not all of these need to be covered nor will you be able to fit this all into 2-3 pages) Response: Do you agree with the author? Present a reasoned argument why you do or do not. What other philosophies/philosophers would you use to support your response? How would you modify the author’s position?

5-7 page book review of Immanuel Kant (1983) Perpetual Peace and Other Essays.Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing. The paper is split into three sections: 1 page description, 2-3 page analysis, 2-3 page response. Description: Summarize the author’s thesis or argument. Analysis: In your analysis you might want to consider these questions (amongst others): What philosophical positions does the author take? How does the author justify her/his argument? Are the author’s premises true, probable or plausible? Is the argument of the book sound? Are there historical comparisons? What was the context of the writing? Which other philosopher’s have taken a similar/opposite view to the author? (Not all of these need to be covered or will even fit in 2-3 pages). Response: Do you agree with the author? Present a reasoned argument why you do or do not? What other philosophy/philosophers would you use to support your response? How would you modify the author’s position?

•Some people say, price, snob value, and value as relic have little to do with artistic merit. The first is to do with rarity, the fluctuations of collectors’ tastes, and the manipulations of the art dealers; the second is a matter of social rivalry; the third is psychological, to do with the way we treat objects. •Quiz 4?Do you agree with that? Why or why not? ?no less than 400 words?

essay about free will and determinism, are you more convinced that determinism (about human nature) is true?  Or do you think that determinism is not true, and that we have real free will?

Complete the exercises in the attached document, “Reading Exercises.” These exercises are also in the textbook, refer to your text should you have questions or need further examples.

Instructions Please, submit your paper according to the following guidelines. 1. Make sure to include the word count at the top of your paper. 2. Please, note that you have to submit a hard copy of your paper on January 3rd, 202. Please print in this format: Times New Roman, 12, double-spaced. 3. Please, implement the use of textual analysis in your essays. Note that using at least 1 or 2 quotes for each paragraph, for a total of at least 4 quotes per page could be ideal. Quotes should not be too long; they should be introduced and contextualized. Add references and pages. 4. Please note that videos and documentaries can be quoted, but do not count as one of the 3 required sources. Thanks. TITLE Please, note that this shall be a theoretical and historical paper, but also a creative one. 1. Human Enhancement: Pros and Cons. Please, locate yourself in the bioethical debate on human enhancement. Are you in favor? Are you against? Are you only supporting some cases, and against other cases? What kind of regulations would you implement? Please, sustain your argument using at least three texts read in class in the first part of the course.