Category: Philosophy

Certainly! Thales of Miletus, an ancient Greek philosopher, is often considered the founder of natural philosophy. Here are some key points about Thales:
Origins and Interests:
Thales was born in Miletus, Greek Ionia, around 620 BCE.
He investigated various areas of knowledge, including philosophy, history, science, mathematics, engineering, geography, and politics.
His questioning approach laid the groundwork for Greek astronomy and scientific inquiry.
Primary Principle:
Thales proposed that water was the fundamental substance from which everything originated.
This idea marked a departure from supernatural explanations and contributed to the development of scientific thought.
Cosmology and Astronomy:
Thales explained cosmological events without invoking gods.
He believed the Earth floated on water and made significant contributions to understanding solstices, seasons, and eclipses.
Mathematics:
Thales is attributed with several mathematical theorems.
One famous theorem states that the base angles of an isosceles triangle are equal.
Legacy:
Thales founded the Milesian school of natural philosophy and initiated the first Western enlightenment.
His influence extended to subsequent philosophers and thinkers.
While doubts exist about whether Thales wrote anything, he is credited with works like the Nautical Star-guide. Most ancient Greek thinkers rejected the idea that Thales was the first philosopher, challenging assumptions about philosophy’s Greek origin12. If you’d like more detailed information, feel free to explore the provided references! 🌟

The Johnson textbook. We covered chapters 8 through 15, and each question covers part of what we learned about inference to the best explanation. For this section, you must use the main concept from each chapter, excluding the chapters that are long examples (chapter 8/Darwin, chapter 13/Capital Punishment) to evaluate this opinion-editorial piece from CNN. This section should be a minimum of three full paragraphs. 
These concepts are: 
Testimony
Textual Interpretation
Statistics
Correlations and Causes
Inference to the Best Narrative
Explanatory Virtue and Truth
Opinion: The one reason America’s population isn’t about to start shrinking
Opinion by Justin Gest
Editor’s Note: Justin Gest (@_Justin Gest) is a professor at George Mason University’s Schar School of Policy and Government, where he directs the Public Policy program. He is the author of six books on the politics of immigration and demographic change, including his newest, “Majority Minority.” 
CNN
— 
Last week, President Joe Biden committed a diplomatic faux pas when he chided India and Japan, two critical US allies, for being “xenophobic.” Attributing America’s success to its historic openness to immigration, the president suggested that Delhi and Tokyo’s aversion to foreigners constrained their economic growth and population stability.
Tactless as it may have been, Biden was not wrong. Japan, in particular, is expected to see its population drop by a third in the next half-century.
But a few months ago, the US Census Bureau released new projections showing that America’s own population will — for the first time ever — shrink after 2080.
Only one thing is preventing the nation from reaching this milestone next year: immigration.
The consistent arrival of newcomers is expected to keep America from aging as rapidly as Japan and other major economies. If immigration opponents were to cut annual admissions in half, the US would start to shrink in 2044.
All countries’ populations change with trends in birth rates and life expectancy. And like many high-income nations, the US has witnessed a drop in fertility over the last half-century. Combined with longer life expectancy, this has contributed to severe demographic aging.
Aging is problematic for two reasons. It promises insolvency when too few working-age people pay into pension and health care funds that have obligations to support higher numbers of retirement-age seniors. Population decline also spells the decline of economic power and market size — one of America’s greatest geopolitical assets.
The primary demographic antidote for low fertility is immigration. Disproportionately working age and reaching higher fertility rates, immigrants inject youth, labor and innovation into societies, and — at high enough numbers — they offset aging trends. As Biden touted, this has been a core part of America’s economic growth over the last few decades, but also our demographic stability. Nearly all US population increases have been attributable to immigrant arrivals, as opposed to births outpacing deaths.
The U.S. Census logo appears on census materials received in the mail with an invitation to fill out census information online on March 19, 2020 in San Anselmo, California. The U.S. Census Bureau announced that it has suspended census field operations for the next two weeks over concerns of the census workers and their public interactions amid the global coronavirus pandemic.
What makes the new Census Bureau projections especially bleak is that the shrinkage is expected to take place even if the US government keeps immigrant admissions at their present levels. And in case you haven’t downloaded Truth Social, present levels are unacceptable to today’s Republican Party.
In an interview with Time magazine published last week, former President Donald Trump said he wants to place new arrivals in detention camps and deport millions of immigrants that Census projections assume will otherwise remain in the US — both of which will only hasten our country’s demographic decline.
According to the Census report, the number of Americans over 64 years old will surpass the number of Americans under 18 by 2029. At that point, only 60% of the US population will be between 18 and 64 — down from close to 70% in 2010. Deaths in America are projected to outpace births by 2038 for the first time ever. At that point, there will be 13,000 more deaths than births in the US, but the shortfall increases to 1.2 million more deaths annually by 2100 — double the annual shortfall in Japan today.
The US population is projected to reach a high of nearly 370 million in 2080 before beginning its historic downward turn. But if immigration were to be cut approximately in half, Census Bureau demographers estimate that this milestone would occur in 2044. If borders close completely, as many Republican public officials advocate, the decline would start next year.
The immediacy of this impact should not be surprising. If US population growth is attributable to immigrant arrivals, which it now is, then America will cease to grow when no newcomers are admitted.
Of course, Republicans’ self-defeating anxiety around immigration is informed, to some extent, by an earlier Census report — the March 2015 release that anticipated a “majority minority” milestone in 2044. Unlike the new study, the projected decline of America’s “White” population to an under-50% share of the population made headlines everywhere. The numbers — which are problematic for numerous reasons — both emboldened liberals about their electoral prospects and generated fierce backlash to immigration among conservatives.
Once a bureaucratic matter so insignificant to conservatives that the Reagan administration endorsed amnesty for all undocumented foreigners, immigration has now become the central pillar of the post-2015 Republican Party. Immigration is the top issue priority for conservatives entering the 2024 general election, and a hindrance for Biden’s prospects among independents.
But if the 2015 Census projections inflamed anti-immigrant sentiment, the recent report might have the opposite effect.
That’s because my newest research suggests that information about the realities of demographic aging persuades people — especially moderates and centrists — to open their minds about immigration.
My coauthors and I surveyed more than 20,000 adults across 19 European countries. A subset of these respondents was informed about real demographic trends, much like those revealed by the recent US Census report according to demographers, birth rates in their country “are significantly below the level needed to maintain the native population.”
The same subset of respondents was also told that, even though many immigrants have already entered their country over the years, to maintain current population levels, the government will need to accept “significantly more immigrants from countries outside of Europe with higher birth rates, such as Muslim-majority and African countries.”
Remarkably, despite the invocation of the minority outgroups that rankle some voters, respondents in the subset were more likely to support increased immigration numbers than those who were not exposed to the news about demographic decline at all.
In Western European countries — where elevated minority fertility rates are tempering the effects of demographic aging — respondents were even resistant to far-right fearmongering narratives about “replacement theory” after immigration was portrayed as critical to the nation’s endurance. This was especially true for respondents with centrist political ideologies, those who were over 35 years old and those with average educational backgrounds.
Rather than see immigrants as a threat to “replace” the nation, these respondents grew more likely to see them as a way to “replenish” the nation.
The findings from this experiment and the Census Bureau report emerge at a moment when American and European political leaders are scrambling to fortify their borders. But just as people want a well-managed admissions system, there is a countervailing desire to sustain the national population.
As much as the world polarizes over foreigners’ arrival, demographic aging is an unwavering, intensifying reality that remains unaddressed, and a good reason to invest in an orderly immigration system that sustains the nation into the future.

For this paper, find an ethical dilemma in a show, film, book, comic, video game, song, or current event and discuss the ethical implications of that dilemma. While a traditional “moral dilemma” presents a conflict between two options (e.g., whether to kill or not to kill the baby screaming in the attic to protect the Jewish family from the Gestapo finding them), you should also feel free to instead explain in detail why a particular action or chain of actions is bad (or good) from a Deontological and/or Utilitarian POV. The options both for how to do this and for what to write on are very broad. You can write on the ethics of short-selling regarding the Gamestop fiasco, or China’s current treatment of Muslims. You can write about an ethical dilemma in a video game, like whether or not to let the sick children leave or kill them to prevent the disease from spreading throughout the village (this occurs in Assassins Creed: Odyssey). You can discuss a dilemma in the ethics of a medical show, such as House MD or Grey’s Anatomy, and so on with comic books (hello, ending of Watchman!) and song lyrics (like whether or not to cheat, as in the modern classic
“Honey, I’m Good”).

The Discussion Topic: 
The case selected from the Association for Practical and Professional Ethics (APPE) National Ethics Bowl Competition Cases for 2020, which is the context for this discussion assignment, is included below. Once you have read the instructions, the case from the APPE, and the reading assignments in Chapter 7 for Baron d’Holbach, John Stuart Mill, B.F. Skinner, and Jean Paul Sartre indicated in the syllabus, you should develop your response to the following prompts. This assignment is worth 30 points.
The Case: Sisyphus Achievement Awards
The urge to play seems to be deeply embedded in our natures. Children the world over invent and play games spontaneously, and adults can easily be drawn into playing. Gameplay is not confined to humans, either.  Many higher animals, especially when young, engage in behavior that can only be called playful.
Gamification is the inclusion of gamelike elements in a non-game activity, essentially turning something that is not a game into one. In recent years, thanks to great advances in the psychology of play, surveillance technology, data collection, and data processing, many companies have experimented with gamifying their products or services. Retailers issue bonus bucks, coupons, frequent flyer miles, or similar prizes to loyal customers. Makers of educational software, like uolingo, award achievement badges and create leaderboards to motivate learners through rewards and competition.  Health apps keep track of steps taken, calorie intake, heart rate, and so forth. Examples abound of how the natural urge to play has been channeled into an artificial urge to consume, study, or exercise.
Everyone knows that a good way of motivating oneself for a boring task is to make a game of it, especially when the only carrot or stick lies in the future, like a paycheck or a pink slip. It’s no surprise that some businesses have gotten into the game, so to speak, by gamifying the workplace. Production levels used to be measured monthly, weekly, or daily, and workers learned the good or bad news at regular performance reviews. But new systems now allow managers to keep track of workers in real time, and workers themselves can instantly see how they’re doing. The Disneyland Resort Hotel in California, for instance, has installed scoreboards throughout their laundry facility, according to an article published by Aeon on October 10, 2018, that display color-coded names of workers: green if the worker is meeting the goals set by management, yellow if the worker slows down, and red if the worker falls behind. Individual laundry machines at the facility monitor the rate of input and flash warning lights directly at the workers if they slow down.
While such systems do not directly administer physical punishment or reward, they nevertheless tap into a deep-seated urge toward competitive play, spurring workers on through nonstop monitoring that is hard to ignore.  Managers don’t need to make the rounds with stopwatches in hand. The system itself micromanages workers to a degree undreamt of by the efficiency engineers of the early twentieth century. One might even call it Taylorism on steroids. According to the Aeon article, workers themselves at the Disney facility called it “the electronic whip.” According to one union organizer, Beatriz Topete, what had once been a collegial environment turned into a competitive race in which pregnant workers fell behind, people skipped bathroom breaks, injuries increased, and the faster workers resented those who didn’t keep up.
Discussion Prompt:
This topic is about freedom of the will and the degree to which worker behavior can be modified and productivity can be maximized.  Are these workers described in the case above choosing to be more productive, harder workers, or are they caused to become so? 
Your initial posting should be a minimum of 150 words.  (Please don’t forget to also reply to at least two of your classmates.) Be sure to defend your answer with specific reference to one of the following philosophers, making effective use of their theory:
Baron d’Holbach (Hard Determinism)
John Stuart Mill (Soft Determinism/Compatibilism)
B.F. Skinner (Determinism/Behavioral Engineering)
Jean Paul Sartre (Existentialism)
Your posts in the discussion area should exhibit careful thought and logical reasoning and provide evidence for your position. Each post should be at least one well-developed paragraph (approximately 150 words or more). Use correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar. Your postings must include specific reference to one of the assigned philosophers, making effective use of the philosopher’s theory that you have chosen.  Short, relevant quotes used to support your core claims are excellent but must not be longer than 25% of the 150 word minimum requirement. 

• One paragraph that captures the main claim of one author with respect to the central concept; (article attached)
• One paragraph that captures the main claim of a second author with respect to the central concept; (Article attached)
• One paragraph that includes either a synthesis of common claims/questions OR a descriiption of differences; (Use the attached articles)
Please ensure you have one complete page.

I wrote a thesis statement about a month ago that I just havent been able to make good on. That thesis statement can “change” during the course of me wiritng the paper so feel no need to stick to it to a T. But at least write something along the lines of that which I provide you. 
Ignore most of the argument section. I no longer believe most of that stuff. Just write about why the introspective techniques that have arisen from indian sprititual traditions are epistemically valid methodologies when it comes to studying the phenomenological aspects of the human mind and conciousness and why they could be considered “scientific”. I included the old thesis statement. 

Fill in the blanks based off the reading. Please pay attention to how many words go in each blank. It is in the brackets underneath the question. Please do not add more words than required, or put less words than required. Thank you.

-PLEASE READ EVERYTHING BELOW-
After reading Descartes’ Meditations, you will engage in one of the philosophical conversations that arose from his groundbreaking work. In this assignment you will write a 4-6-page (1000-1500 word) paper on a philosophical question in which you support and defend a thesis over multiple paragraphs. In your introduction, you will discuss the philosophical question and its context, state your thesis in which you answer the philosophical question, and provide a roadmap for how you will defend the thesis over multiple paragraphs in the paper. In the body of your paper, you will need to consider the way Descartes and a second philosopher have answered the question, discussing the advantages of and objections to their views and how they shape your own answer to the question. 
How to complete the Answering a Philosophical Question Paper: 
Step One: Select a question from the choices below: 
A. Does having faith mean you are certain of the existence of God? For this question, you will compare Descartes’ answer with the answer given by Kierkegaard using our course texts. 
B. Are minds and bodies (brains) separate? For this question, you will compare Descartes’ answer with answers provided by Nagel or Chalmers from our course modules. 
C. How do race, ethnicity, and/or gender shape our ways of knowing? What kinds of knowledge do we all share? Do those with non-dominant cultural perspectives have more ways of knowing than those with dominant perspectives? You will use the materials found in our final Module to answer these questions. 
Step Two: After you have decided on your question, write an introduction in which you pose the question and explain why it is interesting, important, disturbing, etc. In other words, explain why it is worth investigating. Next, state your answer to this question—this answer will be the thesis of your paper. After stating your thesis, provide a brief overview or “roadmap” of how you will prove this conclusion throughout the body of your paper. 
Step Three: Write the body of the paper in which you defend your thesis over multiple paragraphs. You will need to consider the answer Descartes and one other philosopher (as noted above) might give to the question. There are various ways to defend your thesis over multiple paragraphs, but you might consider using the following format: 
1.. Write at least one page answering the question from Descartes’ perspective. This page will require you to summarize his perspective fairly and accurately. What do you consider to be the strengths and weaknesses of this answer? How does considering his perspective help you prove your own thesis? 
2. Do the same for a second philosophical perspective. 
3. Write 1-2 pages discussing your own answer to the question and making the case for your thesis. 
4. Write a concluding paragraph in which you restate your thesis and summarize how you have just supported and defended the thesis in your paper. Remind us of what is at stake in accepting your thesis—in other words, why do you believe it is important that we accept your conclusion? 
Step Four: Formatting 
Write your paper directly into Packback Deep Dives. Papers should be the equivalent of 4-6 pages (1000-2000 words) double-spaced. Packback will automatically format the paper as such. 
Step Five: Cite and Document your sources properly. 
I have attatched documents of the material you can use for this paper. 
Use only our course texts as your sources. Do not use Sparknotes, Wikipedia, or any other .com sources. Do not use AI such as ChatGPT to write your paper. While AI has its place, the objective of this assignment is for you to critically read, think about, and write the entire paper. Critical reading, thinking, and writing are course objectives for all philosophy courses. Provide the author’s name, the title of the work, the date, and the page numbers you are using. Do not plagiarize even one sentence of your paper. 
You must cite (use the name and page number) every idea you borrow, in every sentence. A citation only applies to the sentence in which it is found—not to the whole paragraph. You must also acknowledge and document your sources. Plagiarism will result in a MINIMUM consequence of a ZERO on the paper. Again, you may not use ChatGPT or other AI technologies to help you write this paper. Be sure to cite and document any words, ideas, or lines of reasoning that you borrow from your classmates. These citations do not count toward your two philosophical sources.
Alphabetize your Works Cited list.

For this assignment, you will contrast the Federal Bill HR7910 – Protecting Our Kids Actwith the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights, and your state constitution regarding gun control. Write what similarities and differences are present between the three documents. Then, as a healthcare professional, analyze if you think gun reform should take place on the federal or state level or if it should be a congruent (shared) power. For this assignment, you will need to draw from the United States Constitution to clearly understand how powers are separated, as found in Article I Section 8 Clause 18. 
Requirements
Length: 1½-2 pages (not including title page or references page)
1-inch margins
Double spaced
12-point Times New Roman font
Title page
References page (minimum of 2 scholarly sources in addition to textbook if cited)
Outcomes
CO 1: Evaluate the principles of democracy and Federalism.
CO 2: Relate the articles of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to specific issues or cases regarding freedoms and their rights as citizens.
CO 3: Describe the three branches of government and the office of the president.

Eric, on an order you recently completed for me it required a graph and chart to answer question number 1. Can you fufill this?