Philosophy

Objective: Analyze the concept of worldview. Mindset: Appreciate concept mapping as a way to visualize knowledge and make it more applicable to your personal life. Instructions The use of concept mapping is a valuable and effective way to visualize knowledge, as well as find relevance in your personal life. Worldviews are very personal. Concept mapping will help provide individual relationships and insights with a worldview. Create a concept map that visually represents one of the worldviews presented in Week Two. World views from week 2 follow as below : Analyzing worldviews can be an overwhelming and confusing task, but filtering the worldviews through the “seven questions” is very helpful. Write at least one paragraph for each question below as to why each of these questions is important in understanding a worldview. Do not answer the questions per se; instead, discuss the importance of the questions themselves. What is prime reality: the really real? What is the nature of external reality, that is, the world around us? What is a human being? What happens to a person at death? Why is it possible to know anything at all? How do we know what is right and wrong? What is the meaning of human history?

Explain and Analyze the positions of Locke, Berkeley and Hume separately. Next, discuss cognitive scientist, Donald Hoffman, and what ramifications his knowledge have on our philosophers’ ideas.

What is a Just State? In a 2–3-page paper, address the following: Explain intersectionality Explain at least one social philosophy from the textbook. For instance, you might discuss utilitarianism, Rawls, Marx, Nozick, Du Bois, King, or Beauvoir. If the theory has a clear correlate, please discuss it as well. Illustrate your understanding of both the intersectional and traditional social justice approaches with examples. Support your account of the theories with citations to the textbook and online lectures in correct APA format. MUST USE THIS REFERENCE FOR CITATIONS: REFERENCE: Mitchell, H.B. (2015). Roots of Wisdom: A Tapestry of Philosophical Traditions: (7th ed.). Boston: Cengage.

In his essay ‘Evil and Omnipotence’, J.L. Mackie presents and defends a version of The Problem of Evil. As part of his discussion, Mackie goes through a number of ‘fallacious solutions’. One of these solutions that Mackie discusses is the claim that ‘evil is necessary as a means to good’. Briefly state and critically discuss Mackie’s view regarding this solution, making sure to explain whether or not you agree with him Articles links: http://www.ditext.com/mackie/evil.html

Arguments on God Worth: 200pts Length: 1000 words min/max We’ve covered two sets of arguments concerning the existence of God • The Ontological Argument (pro: Anselm | con: Gaunilo, Aquinas, Kant) • The Design Argument (pro: Aquinas, Paley | con: Hume, Mackie) For this paper you’re asked to do three things: 1) Explain (in thorough detail) either the Ontological or the Design argument for God 2) Explain (in thorough detail) the corresponding objections to the argument you picked 3) Explain which argument you think is right and why. Explain why one is right and the other is wrong. General Guidelines (Mandatory): • All arguments should be explained in such a way that someone who had never heard of them could understand the arguments after reading your paper. When writing, imagine that you’re explaining the concepts to someone who is unfamiliar with them. • When explaining arguments and counterarguments, do so as if you agree with the positions. Even if you think the argument is wrong, don’t let that show in your explanation. You’ll have the opportunity to critique all the arguments in section (3)! • Relevant quotes (and proper page citations) should be employed for each position you discuss. Remember to explain the meaning of the quotes you use. • Provide examples to help elucidate your or the philosophers’ points. • Do not go off track in section (3). Remember that you’re evaluating arguments here. Even if you agree with the conclusion (that God exists or that God doesn’t exist), that doesn’t mean you have to agree that the argument is good. Take care to not introduce irrelevant information here. For example, if you’re discussing the Ontological Argument and its criticisms, section (3) is not the time to discuss a miracle you experienced, since that doesn’t have any bearing on the arguments. Keep things on track! • Remember that we’re looking at the strength of the arguments here! Even if you agree with a philosopher’s conclusion (for instance, that God exists), that doesn’t mean you should feel compelled to think that their argument that supports that conclusion is a good one. It’s ok to concede that one argument is superior even if you disagree with the conclusion for personal reasons. Specific Guidelines: Ontological Argument: • Take care to explain Anselm’s argument as thoroughly as possible. Go through each step and explain how it works toward the conclusion. • Do the same for the criticisms (all three). Explain them as completely as possible. This will take more than a sentence or two for each one. Design Argument: • Make sure to explain the Design argument as comprehensively as possible. • Remember that Hume approaches the issue in the form of a dialog. One speaker defends the design argument while another denounces it. • Hume offers 3 principle arguments against the Design argument. • Mackie’s points fit nicely with one particular criticism from Hume. Think of which one that is and incorporate it.

(1) What does Euthyphro first propose as a definition of piety or holiness?  (2) In responding to Socrates, Euthyphro amends his definition of piety or holiness. How?  (3) Socrates then asks another question of Euthyphro. What is it?  (This question is known as Euthyphro’s Dilemma.) (4) Why is Euthyphro confused (or enlightened) at the end of the dialogue? (5) What is your reflection on this reading?

What are your concerns about what’s happening in the U.S. today? (big picture and specific example) What interests you about Modern Philosophy? What are your hopes for it to serve you and us? [Minimum: 10 sentences, maximum: 15 sentences. Be as detailed and revealing as you can in this brief introduction. Revealing means making interesting or meaningful information known, especially about one’s attitude or character.

Please use Rubrics. Purpose the library essay fulfills its purpose of explaining how Rip Van Winkle reflects the emergence of American mythology. The essay contains a complete analysis of the characteristics and explains how these characteristics affect the story and the reader’s experience of the story. The literary essay presents a valid thesis and contains examples of three to four characteristics of stories that participate in the mythology of a nation. The essay identifies the title of the story and the name of the author and presents a thesis in the introductory paragraph, and ends with a concluding paragraph that summarizes the main points or restates the thesis of the essay. The essay uses the present tense when referring to the story. It is written in 3rd person. No slang expressions. Written in a formal style. Each sentence expresses a complete thought. And the essay contains exact words from the story and are punctuated correctly. The title of the story and the name of the author are capitalized correctly.

What are the strengths and weaknesses of the Realist’s view of a subject-matter curriculum?

Harman, “Moral Relativism Defended,” pp. 35-43 It is simple. Pretty much just talk about the reading, or how you feel about it/what’s your opinion? It is just a discussion.