by admin | Feb 21, 2023 | Philosophy
Prompt
Select one philosopher or school of philosophy from Column A and one philosopher or school of philosophy from Column B, and respond to the following question:
In our first class session we examined the concept of “political legitimacy” as an issue that is addressed implicitly or explicitly in the thought of every political philosopher, as Socrates illustrated through his notion of the “noble lie.” We have observed that a philosopher’s estimation of the nature of “men” (human nature) plays an important role in the noble myth he offers to legitimate the body politic. Describe, compare, and contrast the views of human nature proffered by one theorist or philosophical school in Column A and another theorist or school of thought in Column B. What are the consequences of each thinker/school’s assessment of human nature for the ideal polity each thinker prescribed? Conclude your essay by describing briefly the consequences of this assessment for each school’s/thinker’s view of the legitimacy of revolutionary political change.
Column B
1. Xunzi
2. Han Feizi
3. The Daoists (Laozi & Zhuangzi)
Each student must write a paper in response to one of the paper topics listed below. Your
paper should be 5 to 7 typewritten (using Times Roman 12-point characters and margins of 1” on
all four sides) double-spaced pages long (not counting the cover sheet), 1 and will be due no later
than 11:59 p.m. PST on Sunday, February 19, 2023 by submission via the Assignments tab.
Be sure that your paper responds to the question and contains copious references to readings
assigned for the course. All direct quotations from the texts used in the course should be placed
in quotation marks and cited using the short form of the short form of author’s last name and
page number in parentheses (e.g., Chan, p. xx.) and not footnotes at the bottom of the page.
Paraphrased material or ideas other than your own taken from the texts or from lectures must
also be cited. Lectures notes should be cited as “Lecture, [January 9], 2023,” and handouts should
be cited by the title of the handout.) Since you may not use or cite sources not assigned for this
class, endnotes or footnotes must not be used. Do not append a Works Cited Page. If you do,
your paper will be penalized 5 points.
1 Please number your pages, numbering the cover page “0”). Any pages beyond page 7 will be ignored.
by admin | Jan 28, 2023 | Philosophy
Discussions Response
please treat each Discussions Response separately
Daniel M
Nozick believed in a minimal interference of government, which is in contrast to Rawls who believed the government should exist to ensure everyone is treated equally and should take concrete steps to reach that goal. Nozick firmly believed the government does not have the right to interfere with people without the direct request from the people. This applied to taxes and property as well. Justice in Acquisition is Nozick’s belief that if someone fairly obtained their property, meaning they did not illegally steal it from someone else, and was fair in the amount they took so as to not deprive other people, then it was a fair acquisition. At this point, the government has no authority to come in and attempt to redistribute that property, as it was acquired fairly. Nozick also believed that if the property included resources such as water from a river, being used by others previously, then it is imperative the person who acquired the property ensure the others can continue to utilize the resource, or water. He does note however that it is entirely up to the new property owner who acquired the property owner as to the amount and methods of obtaining and using that resource, since they are now the owner. Put simply, this means whoever obtained a property first has rights to it, but they can’t be so unfair the strip the ability of others surrounding it to utilize natural resources on it, and they cannot take more property than is fair so as to deprive others of the chance to own any.
Chauncie H
The “veil of ignorance” is a moral reasoning device designed to promote impartial decision making by denying decision makers access to potentially biasing information. Rawls thought experiment on this was that we should imagine we sit behind a veil of ignorance that keeps us from knowing who we are and identifying with our personal circumstances. By being ignorant of our circumstances we can more objectively consider how societies operate. He also stated that decision-makers are assumed to be purely self-interested but their decisions are constrained by the absence of information that they could use to select principles favorable to their personal circumstances. Now, what I think he means by that is thinking back to slavery on people thought it was a good idea to have slaves and the view of ignorance would have given them a right to refuse slaveries, and it would only affect the slave owners, because of what they were doing to the slaves. I definitely agree with this. I think the veil of ignorance gives us a way to sort of create a way for fairness, and it’s something that we definitely need to work on even in this time, I think a lot of people see it as they don’t have to be favorite anything because it’s theirs and that’s what we have to normalize, something may be yours, but the same time it’s nothing wrong with being fair, telling someone something or even sharing a little bit of information with them.
https://www.pnas.org/action/oidcCallback?idpCode=connect&error=login_required&error_descriiption=Login+required&state=2_nk-vDIpU9kPph5oTgFHjCiMKSknNGbQmhWGL0QnxMLinks to an external site.
by admin | Jan 28, 2023 | Philosophy
(1) Why does White believe that Christianity is the most anthropocentric religion the world has ever
seen? Drawing upon White’s essay, discuss the ways in which she thinks Judeo-Christian
thinking, together with technological advancements, has led to overexploitation of the
environment.
Please read White’s article “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis” and answer the following question in 2-3 paragraphs. Do not use any external sources to answer question.
Your answer needs to demonstrate that you read, reflected, and examined the reading(s) for that week. For example, this question needs to have White’s paper as the focus for your response. You should find ways to make connections between the reading and the question. One way to do this is to draw out something the author says that you can then use a point of departure for what you want to say.
by admin | Jan 28, 2023 | Philosophy
Write a 500-750 word (2-3 pages) essay in which you (a) explain a single
argument, view, or objection and then (b) raise a single objection to that argument,
view, or objection. Roughly, the first half of the essay should be exposition, and the
second half evaluation.
The first line of your essay should begin: “In this essay I argue that…” followed
by a descriiption of your thesis statement. Please do not include an introduction or
conclusion. The point of the assignment is to develop your skills constructing the
substance of philosophical argumentative essay.
Some Tips:
• The whole point of the essay is to convince the reader of a particular claim. Make
that main claim extremely clear and explicit. This is your thesis statement. Your
thesis statement should make a philosophical, and not merely descriiptive, claim
(e.g. “Direct manipulation of brain is permissible,” and not “Levy believes that
2
direct manipulation of the brain is permissible.”). Take a clear stand on a
neuroethical issue.
• How do you choose a thesis statement? As we go through the material be on the
lookout for an argument or point that you disagree with. Then your thesis
statement would be that that argument or point is wrong.
• Your thesis statement should be of the form: “In this essay, I argue that…” Note
that the ‘that’ is crucial. The following is non-grammatical and non-sensical: “In
this essay I argue the extended mind hypothesis.” You need to argue that
something is true or false (or, alternatively: for a particular claim, or against a
particular claim, or in defense of a particular claim). For example, “In this essay I
argue that the extended mind hypothesis is false.”
• Ideally, your thesis statement should attempt to advance the dialectic. This
means that it should attempt to contribute something novel or original to a debate
that we’ve discussed in the course. For example, a thesis statement of the form “In
this essay, I argue that Levy’s view is correct” does not do this, it simply registers
agreement. So what do you do if you find that you want to write on a topic in
which you agree with the argument? In that case, try to come to the defense of the
argument against a new threat. Try to articulate what you think is the strongest
objection to the argument that you want to defend, and offer a counter response.
• If you have the space, try to add another layer of depth by anticipating and
responding to an objection to your position: “One might object to the argument of
this essay by claiming that…In response, notice that…”
• Fully explain all points. Imagine that the reader is someone with no prior
knowledge of the material. Strive to write so that such a reader can follow what
you are saying. To do this, you should be using the following phrases frequently:
“That is,…”, “In other words,…”, “For example,…”, and “To illustrate,…”. You
can test whether you’ve achieved this level of clear explanation by having a friend
or family member read your paper.
• This one should be obvious, but you should read your paper before submitting
it. If you can’t make sense of it, the TA and I surely won’t be able to. Good, clear
papers are easy to read.
Sample Structures:
Example 1. Raise an objection to the extended mind hypothesis. In that case you are simply raising an objection to an argument, so that your essay structure will be as follows:
(i) Thesis statement: “In this essay, I raise an objection to the argument for the
extended mind hypothesis”
(ii) Exposition: Explain what the extended mind hypothesis is. Explain the
argument for the extended mind hypothesis. [Note that in the exposition your goal
is to simply explain the target view or argument so that it is on the table for
discussion. Do not include any evaluation at this stage.]
(iii) Your objection. [Notice that you will not be in a position to raise your
objection until you’ve first explained the view.]
3
(iv) Space allowing, consider how your interlocutor (i.e. the person you are
debating) might respond to your point and offer a preemptive counter-response.
See these EXTREMELY good guides on philosophical writing:
• http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html (provides a good
overview)
• https://www.public.asu.edu/~dportmor/tips.pdf (by ASU philosopher Doug
Portmore; more in depth)
My favorite piece of advice from the above Pryor article is to write while imagining that
your reader is lazy, stupid, and mean: “He’s lazy in that he doesn’t want to figure out what
your convoluted sentences are supposed to mean, and he doesn’t want to figure out what
your argument is, if it’s not already obvious. He’s stupid, so you have to explain
everything you say to him in simple, bite-sized pieces. And he’s mean, so he’s not going
to read your paper charitably. (For example, if something you say admits of more than
one interpretation, he’s going to assume you meant the less plausible thing.)”
Now, of course, those reading your paper will be none of these things! But if you
write with this idea in mind, it will help you achieve a high level of clarity and precision,
which is highly valued in philosophical writing. I still try to keep these things in mind
whenever I write.
Philosophical argumentative writing is a unique form of persuasive writing in which one
attempts to convince the reader, by way of rational argumentation, of the truth of a
particular claim (i.e. the thesis statement). If you have never written a philosophical
argumentative paper before:
4
• Read the guides by Pryor and Portmore.
• Consider running your thesis statement by your TA.
• Consider sending your TA a detailed outline (by the Wednesday prior to the
Sunday due date) for feedback.
• Consider making an appointment at the SHPRS Writing Studio:
https://shprs.asu.edu/writingstudio
by admin | Jan 2, 2023 | Philosophy
As with the papers, this presentation will be over the philosopher of your choice, but here you are not limited in any other way than your subject cannot be on the same person you covered in either paper. Specifically, this presentation will be covering the historical context for the philosopher and details about at least one of his theories . Which theory you cover is up to you.
In more detail, ideally it will be a narrated PPT, but using bullets on the slides and putting the commentary is the notes section will be sufficient. The history component should cover not only birth and death, but where the person lived and what kinds of historical events might have played a role in the development of the philosophy. For example, Hegel could hear the cannon fire from Napoleon’s army at the battle of Jena as he was penning the last pages of his Phenomenology of Mind. It would not be surprising if this influenced his idea that he was witnessing the end of history. Some of this may be speculation but be sure you can justify your claims with evidence and good reasoning. For the theory part, be as thorough as you can be in summarizing the details of that theory. It need not be full detailed account, but there must be enough to demonstrate you understand the theory. Having this delivered in a PPT is to allow for your creative side to shine.
Reiterated:
Narrated or with detailed notes explaining the bullets on the slides
One philosopher
The historical context of his life
One theory in enough detail to demonstrate an understand the theory
MLA formatting must be used with citations no the slides or in the notes and a works cited slide at the end.
by admin | Jan 2, 2023 | Philosophy
Criminal Justice Policy: Criminal justice policies always balance personal liberty and the desire to reduce crime. Select and analyze an example of a criminal justice policy conflicting with constitutional protections. What is the conflict? How should it be resolved?
Hegel’s Dialectic: Consider Hegel’s use of dialectic in his reasoning. Pick one of his theories and discuss how dialectic was used to reach a specific conclusion. Do you feel that the conclusion was reasonable? Be sure to discuss why or why not.
Thomas Reid: Looking at Thomas Reid, pick one component of his philosophy (common sense, conception, against representationalism, personal identity, etc.), and after providing your understanding of the component, explain how it either muddled or improved on the work of one or more earlier British Empiricist.
***Each question must be at least 275 words***
