Category: Philosophy

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,

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.

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

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?

First,
describe a time you used rhetoric or it was used on you. In your description,
include details about the tactics or rhetorical devices (i.e., ethos, pathos,
hyperbole) used.
Next, define
logical argument in comparison to rhetoric. Is rhetoric always bad? Why, or why
not? Give two examples to illustrate your thinking.
Your journal
entry must be at least 400 words in length. No references or citations are
necessary but must be in APA Style formatting if used.

PAR 1&2 Is how the layout of the whole paper should be 
EVAL 1&2&3 Just a checklist making sure everything is correct 
I HAVE PROVIDED THE 4 SOURCES 
This is the speech that we are following: 
https://www.flgov.com/2024/01/09/governor-ron-desantis-delivers-the-state-of-the-state-address/ 
THE REPORT PDF IS WHAT WE HAVE ALREADY, IF YOU COULD CONTINUE FROM WHAT WE HAVE AND MAKE THE NECESSARY CHANGES THAT WOULD BE GREAT!!!!
THIS IS DUE FRIDAY MAY 17th AT 12 pm

Writing Assignment 2: Argument Summary
Due: March 29 End of Day
Assignment: Re-present the argument of one of the philosophers we’ve read since Plato. Your goal is to be as precise as possible in articulating the points made by the philosopher. Beginning with a clear statement of what you take the philosopher to be doing, proceed to enumerate the argumentative moves they make and why.
Choose one of the following texts to summarize:
Lugones, “Playfulness, ‘World’-Travelling, and Loving Perception”
Mills, “But What Are You Really?”
Descartes, First and Second Meditations
Nagarjuna, The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way Ch 24
Requirements:
800–1200 words
Open with a clear sentence stating what the philosopher is doing in the piece you’ve chosen. (“In [title of text], [philosopher’s name] is [what they are doing]”)
In an introductory paragraph, summarize the main arguments of the text
In succeeding paragraphs proceed to add detail to your introductory summary by articulating the specific arguments or moves made
Proceed in a clear and coherent order, making connections between ideas
Present the ideas of the text accurately in your own words (minimal or no quoting)

Here is the required for this essay. Both Descartes and Locke have very different ideas of how we acquire knowledge, yet both make reference to God. What role does God play in Descartes’ and Locke’s theory of knowledge? Do you think it does more harm than good? Explain.
Explain the role of God in Descartes’ and Locke’s philosophy should only take-up a couple of paragraphs. The main focus of this essay should be YOUR argument regarding the last question. Answering (and then defending) whether incorporating God into their theories does more harm than good needs to be the star of the essay.
1.Clear thesis and argument in the introduction.
2.Clear the purpose of this paragraph
3.There seems to be a lot of summary but no argument,Focus on the argument that you making
4.What are the counter argument with this though
5.Critically evaluate this reconciliation and not just summarize.

In Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes presents a bleak and individualistic conception of human nature. In the absence of any external political authority to impose obligations upon individuals, people are in a natural state of war against each other. Do you agree with Hobbes’ understanding of human nature?
Begin by a) explaining the main features of human nature on Hobbes’ account. What are human beings essentially or fundamentally like, for Hobbes? Explain these features in conjunction with Hobbes’ notion of the state of nature and the social contract. Once you’ve explained these ideas, b) provide an argument or reason for whether you agree with Hobbes’ conception of human nature. Do you think human beings are naturally individualistic and violent? Or do you think Hobbes’ bleak picture of humanity is flawed in some way? Make sure your explication is rooted firmly in the text. In other words, your essay should focus on isolating and explaining key passages/quotes from the text itself. An essay that is overly vague/general and that makes no explicit reference to the texts will receive a low grade.