Category: Philosophy

6. But [as to myself, what can I now say that I am], since I suppose
there exists an extremely powerful, and, if I may so speak, malignant
being, whose whole endeavors are directed toward deceiving me ? Can
I affirm that I possess any one of all those attributes of which I have
lately spoken as belonging to the nature of body ? After attentively
considering them in my own mind, I find none of them that can
properly be said to belong to myself. To recount them were idle and
tedious. Let us pass, then, to the attributes of the soul. The first
mentioned were the powers of nutrition and walking; but, if it be true
that I have no body, it is true likewise that I am capable neither of
walking nor of being nourished. Perception is another attribute of the
soul; but perception too is impossible without the body; besides, I
have frequently, during sleep, believed that I perceived objects which I
afterward observed I did not in reality perceive. Thinking is another
attribute of the soul; and here I discover what properly belongs to
myself. This alone is inseparable from me. I am–I exist: this is certain;
but how often? As often as I think; for perhaps it would even happen,
if I should wholly cease to think, that I should at the same time
altogether cease to be. I now admit nothing that is not necessarily true.
I am therefore, precisely speaking, only a thinking thing, that is, a
mind (mens sive animus), understanding, or reason, terms whose
signification was before unknown to me. I am, however, a real thing,
and really existent; but what thing? The answer was, a thinking thing.
Commentary on this passage, references done in harvard style.

-You should watch the movie for quotations 
-don’t use ai
-respect the instructions:
– and i started writing about it you can just use what I started ( iwill send it to you) and incorporate yours
For your final paper, choose two of the three topics presented below:
Hobbes and Rousseau have opposed models for understanding human nature. Their models are animated by the different understandings of place and the role of power, violence, desires, and knowledge in forming a ‘normal (civilized)’ state. Choose one of these models to explain the characters’ interactions, group formation, struggle for domination, sources of violence, and usage of violence. Explain why you chose Hobbes’ or Rousseau’s model for your paper.
Nietzsche offers two models for understanding morality: ‘Master’ Morality and ‘Slave’ Morality. Choose two characters from the movie whose actions and their motivations could be interpreted according to the first model (‘master’ morality) and two characters whose actions and their motivations could be interpreted according to the second model (‘slave’ morality). In each case, explain your choice. Support your choice with episodes from the movie.
Reading Fromm, we learned to distinguish authentic, true disobedience from false disobedience and heteronomous obedience from autonomous obedience. Analyze the movie from Fromm’s perspective. Choose at least one character who represents true disobedience, one who represents false disobedience, one who represents autonomous obedience (based on Categorical Imperative), and one who presents heteronomous obedience in the movie. Explain and justify your choice using Fromm’s arguments and episodes from the movie.
Instructions:
The paper should not contain the movie’s plot or a summary of a philosopher’s arguments. Any general description or summary will not be accepted.
The paper should demonstrate your ability to apply a specific philosophical argument (studied in class) to analyze a character, a dynamic of his relationship with others, a dynamic of group formation, or a dynamic of characters’ interaction.
You are only allowed to use material studied in class. Any usage of material from outside of class will be considered plagiarism (See the syllabus on plagiarism).
When you apply a specific philosophical argument to a specific moment in the movie, provide a short quotation from the texts and the time mark for this moment in the movie.
Requirements:
4-5 pages.
Double-spaced, 12 Times New Roman fonts, standard margins.
Here’s what I started:
One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest is a classic film that explores various aspects of society through a small, closed off group of individuals. The film takes place in a mental rehabilitation center, and while the characters are ironically separated from society while committed, their stories reflect issues within the wider society even though they are unable to participate within it. The film explores the need for such institutions, while also questioning whether are not such institutions are necessary as there are multiple instances throughout the narrative where it is implied and asserted that many of the characters may not in fact require the services they are receiving.
The purpose of institutionalizing individuals should be rehabilitation, however, the system often corrupts those in power and breeds systemic issues such as recidivism. The two primary characters of the film Randal McMurphy and Nurse Ratched represent two opposing forces. Randal McMurphy is admitted to a mental ward following a series of arrests, and violent behavior. He is there to be evaluated so that the state may ascertain his mental capacity. Randal is a freedom loving criminal who is institutionalized because of his criminal history, reckless and dangerous behaviors and throughout the film, McMurphy clearly exhibits antisocial and sociopathic tendencies. Secondly, there’s Nurse Ratched, an authoritarian figure who rules the mental ward with an iron fist. Her character is far more subtle than McMurphy and as such requires deeper analysis to truly understand, but it is clear that both McMurphy and Nurse Ratched’s roles and approaches directly oppose one another.
The dynamic between McMurphy and Nurse Ratched intersect with social contract theory in an intriguing way. Social contract theory dictates that individuals in a society agree to give up certain freedoms in exchange for protection and the maintenance of order by the governing authority. However, McMurphy’s character is an embodiment of freedom and despises authority and so naturally, he stages a rebellion against oppressive authority, personified by Nurse Ratched. His actions and interactions with other patients can be seen as a challenge to the social contract as it exists within the mental institution. He offers them freedom and individuality regardless of the consequences.
While all human beings cherish freedom, we are still able to abide by the rules of society. What is the difference between McMurphy and the average person? I believe that McMurphy’s character embodies freedom to an extreme level, which ultimately leads to his disregard for authority and lands him into the trouble he finds himself in. Nurse Ratched on the other hand, embodies authoritarianism to an extreme level as well. The consequences of Nurse Ratched’s actions are displayed in subtle fashion, but upon further analysis, viewers can conclude that despite the fact that the ward appears to be run well and Nurse Ratched is considered the best nurse in the institution, her practices while good on paper may be at the detriment of her patients.
Nurse Ratched’s actions arguably make the patients in the ward dependent on the institution and if they are out of line, she dulls out consequences. Since all the patients in the ward are male, Nurse Ratched almost appears as a motherly figure and her strict authority can appear to infantilize and emasculate the men. No scene in the film is ever told from Nurse Ratched’s perspective so it’s difficult to fully ascertain whether or not this is intentional on her part, but I would lean that they are intentional as the character is proven to be very cold and calculated or say McMurphy would say “she likes a rigged game” in response to Nurse Ratched given the residents hope that they can vote on a change knowing that their votes could never be the majority get the changes they were hoping for enacted.
Despite all their apparent differences, both McMurphy and Nurse Ratched are actually quite similar in a lot of ways. You can even say that they are two sides of the same coin. Both characters are strong-willed and determined individuals who seek to exert influence over others. The only difference is that one character, Nurse Ratched, has the authority and position to do so. They engage in a power struggle throughout the film, each trying to assert their dominance over the other and the rest of the ward. Nurse Ratched’s position represents the hold that the wider society and its institutions have over the freedom of others. Sometimes you may feel as if you have a choice in a matter, but in reality you really don’t and because of the hold society has over individuals it often feels like there isn’t anything you can actually do about it.
As I have previously stated the mental ward should have been a place for rehabilitation, but instead, throughout the film it is portrayed as a prison that many of the characters yearn to escape from. We also eventually learn that some characters are voluntarily committed and McMurphy asserts that there is nothing wrong with them, no more than the average person out about in society. This can be seen as a critique of social norms and societies insistence on conformity. Correct it and integrate it to your work

We are organising a 4-week training course teaching students how to put an essay together. We will need to create a ppt for the course, 12 slides per week.

DIRECTIONS: Write an essay answer for each of the following three questions. In composing your answers, you may use your copies of Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy, by Descartes, the Princess Elisabeth handout
Be as thorough as you can in your answers!!!
Explain the principle of sufficient reason and the three modes of reality/being. Explain how Descartes uses these concepts to prove God’s existence in Meditation Three. (Hint: ex nihilo, nihil fit….) (10 points)
In Meditation Two, how does Descartes arrive at his certainty that he exists as a res cogitans? (5 points)
Explain Princess Elisabeth’s objection to Descartes’ substance dualism in as much detail as you can. (5 points)
Please be as thorough as possible.

ype your full name Type your last name and page number
Course
Date
Center Paper 1 or 2 or 3: Include your 2 themes in the title and the name of the movie
(Do not bold or underline title—only italicize film titles and foreign words)
A.) Did you like or dislike the movie and/or the documentary? Why? (10 pts.)
Use “I think,” “I agree or I disagree,” etc. (Type a lengthy paragraph).
B.) What is your philosophical theme after watching the movie? (40 pts.)
Indent first lines. Use double spaced. Type a lengthy paragraph.
Choose a philosopher’s name who you can back up for your selected philosophical theme. Let say Soren Kierkegaard on fear and trembling or Aristotle on happiness. Other philosophers such as Confucius, Descartes, Kant, Hegel, Mill, William James, etc. familiarize yourself with names of well-known philosophers mentioned in academic journals and books.
Explain as clear as possible why your chose this philosophical theme (for example, courage, fear, anger, truth, ignorance, creativity, knowledge, wisdom, empathy, solidarity, friendship, irrationality, the absurd, meaning in life, power, freedom, etc.). Comment on it. Use your own words. Back your arguments with rational explanations and back it up with at least 1 scholarly quote from a book and 1 peer-reviewed article from an academic journal. Cite the source in parenthesis, using the new MLA. For instance, “…” (Molloy 518) if it is from a book source or for article sources use the following format: (author’s last name and page number—no p. or pp.). For philosophical sources search in Galileo philosophy websites and journals like the American Philosophical Association website, or use quotes from philosophy electronic books and how they define your philosophical theme that you selected for your movie. Make the connection between the philosophical theme and the film narrative. Explain it in your own words. Use I.
C.) What is your religious and/or theological theme after watching the movie? (40 pts.)
Indent first lines. Use double spaced. Type a lengthy paragraph.
Choose a name of a religious thinker, scholar or theologian who has done research on this particular theme. Let say the XIV Dalai Lama on love in action or Thomas Merton on contemplative truth. Religious thinkers are theologians and/or religious scholars and authors such as Karen Armstrong, Paul Tillich, Martin Buber, A. J. Heschel, Elie Wiesel, etc.
Explain as clear as possible why your chose this religious and/or theological theme (for example, faith, enlightenment, salvation, liberation, love, compassion, selfish desires, lust, greed, envy, devotion, passion for life, sense of awe and wonder, authority, priesthood, forgiveness, determinism, free will, choices, the good life, death, etc.). Comment on it. Use your own words. Back your arguments with rational explanations and back it up with at least 1 scholarly quote from a book and 1 peer-reviewed article from an academic journal. Cite the source in parenthesis, using the new MLA. For instance, “…” (Wead and Lellis 111) if it is from a book source or for articles use the following format: (author’s last name and page number—no p. or pp). For religious or theological sources search religion, theology or spirituality academic journals like the American Academy of Religion, or use quotes from religion or theology electronic books and how they define your religious or spiritual theme that you selected for your movie. For instance, use quotes from books by the XIV Dalai Lama, Pope Francis, Desmond Tutu, etc. Make the connection between the philosophical theme and the film narrative. Explain it in your own words. Use I.
D.) Have the Works Cited page at the end of each paper (10 pts.).
Center Works Cited in the last page (it could be page 3 if need it in order to cite all the sources using the new MLA).
Do not bold it or underline Works Cited.
Use at least 4 scholarly sources (2 from scholarly books and 2 from peer-reviewed articles in academic journals using Galileo). Make sure they are good academic books and articles (peer-reviewed ones). They must cite names of authors, articles’ titles, journal names, volume, issue number, year of publication, website link, and enter your Accessed date of your entry. See samples in Purdue Owl website for citing properly all your sources using the new MLA.
Use the new MLA Manual Style. Check samples in Purdue OWL: MLA Formatting and Style Guide by googling it. Use alphabetical order. Use double spaced. Indent second and third lines. Italicize book titles and name of journal. Type Accessed date of your entry at the end of each article’s web link. Do it manually! Don’t expect the computer to do it for you. They don’t follow the last formats.

Here is the profressors description of the assignment:
In this unique assignment, you will have the opportunity to engage with philosophical ideas in a personal and reflective manner. The Philosophical Letter project invites you to write a letter to a chosen recipient—be it a historical figure, a fictional character, a renowned philosopher, or even an abstract concept like Truth or Reality. The letter should delve into your thoughts on a specific philosophical topic we’ve covered in the course. This assignment encourages a more personal and introspective writing style, allowing you to explore your own beliefs, experiences, and questions related to the chosen philosophical theme. Use this opportunity to connect the dots between the course material and your own understanding of knowledge and reality. Consider this letter as a space for genuine reflection and inquiry. How might your chosen recipient contribute to the conversation around the philosophical topic? How do your personal experiences and beliefs intersect with the concepts we’ve explored in class? Remember to craft a thoughtful introduction, develop the body of the letter with depth and clarity, and conclude with a meaningful closing statement. This project is designed to foster creativity, critical thinking, and a deeper engagement with philosophical concepts in a format that goes beyond the traditional academic paper.
I will be linking a ton of my course matierals as references. 

Passage for Commentary : The complete or perfect notion of an individual substance contains all of its predicates, past, present, and future. For certainly it is now true that a future predicate will be, and so it is contained in the notion of a thing. And thus everything that will happen to Peter or Judas, both necessary and
free, is contained in the perfect individual notion of Peter or Judas, considered in the realm of possibility by withdrawing the mind from the divine decree for creating him, and is seen there by God.
commentary on that, references please sourced in harvard style,

You are turning one of my class blog posts into a term paper of 1100 words. Please see all attached documents for exact details.

In order to complete this discussion, you need to first:
read What Is Truth?”
read Dew & Foreman pp. 41-43 (section on “Pragmatism” only)
read “Truth: Pragmatic Theories” (section 6 only)
If you have not done so, stop now to view and read that material.
This discussion is on the Pragmatic theory of truth and criticisms that philosophers have raised against it, as presented in the sources above.
For your thread, consider the various arguments against Pragmatism and answer each question:
Pick which one you think is either the strongest OR the weakest/least clear argument against Pragmatism, and explain why. (A specific line of reasoning against Pragmatism must be examined.)
Why is Pragmatism popular or attractive to many, in your opinion?
Your thread should directly engage with the specified course material.

Essay topics
You must write your first paper on Kierkegaard. Here are some broad
suggestions for essay topics, keeping in mind that you can alter these topics,
combine them, or even develop your own if you have an interesting idea:
·     
In the section “Preliminary
Expectoration” of Fear and Trembling, Johannes de Silentio describes a
preacher whose oratory is contradictory: on the one hand, he scolds a copy-cat
for wanting to do as did Abraham, describing him as abominable, offscouring of
society, possessed by the devil; on the other hand, he describes Abraham as the
greatest. Given that there is no discernable outward difference between
these two people, how can one distinguish them and why the very different
judgment? What is at stake here? (You can also appeal to “Truth as
Subjectivity” if you are writing on this topic or, for that matter, any of the
other topics).
·     
Johannes de Silentio
repeatedly claims that being a knight involves movement. Why is movement
so important? And why, above all, does faith go beyond resignation?
Specifically, why does faith involve a double movement? What, philosophically
speaking, is at stake here?
·     
Johannes de Silentio provides an
example, other than Abraham, to “think through” faith: the tax collector. Why
is the tax collector an equally good exemplar of faith? Is he a good exemplar? Why
does Di Silentio appeal to this example?  
·     
Problem
1 of Fear and Trembling takes the form of a question: “Is There Such a
Thing as a Teleological Suspension of the Ethical?” How does Johannes de
Silentio answer this question, or does he? And, if making yourself an exception
is wrong ethically speaking, then how can Abraham be great? Is Abraham an
immoralist? Is Kierkegaard advancing a form of divine command theory? What is
at stake here?  
Instructions
and criteria of assessment
Choose
one of the above topics (or develop your own) and write an argumentative essay,
whereby you:
(i)        State
your thesis explicitly
(‘My goal in this paper is to…’).
(ii)        Explicate the text (identifying,
contrasting, and discussing the arguments
which relate to your thesis).
(iii)       Provide
analysis (with a view
to supporting your thesis)
You
should draw from the texts examined in class, including “Truth is Subjectivity”
and Fear and Trembling. There is no need to use any external sources
other than these texts. The paper should be double spaced, 5 to 6 pages long.
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?