philosophy

It Is / Is not more difficult to gain knowledge on the internet in principle.1-thesis statement should be the first sentence, a few sentences to a paragraph that clearly communicates the position2- the longest part of the paper where you give an argument why your thesis is true. minimum of 2 central ideas as well as citations. also needs to back up thesis using one moral theory.  -articles: “How Much of the Internet Is Fake? Turns Out, a Lot of It, Actually” “Reliability of information on the Internet: Some distinctions” “The WIRED Guide to Online Conspiracy Theories”3-explain ?at least one clear and specific example from the news that supports the thesis.4-You should clearly explain one objection to your view or consideration that disagrees with your thesis5- response to the objection

Read ch. 5 on Kant and watch Sandel’s Episode 6 (both halves), on Kant’s Groundwork. (Optional: watch Sandel’s Episode 7, Part One (first half of episode 7); it’s on lying, but we can skip this part of Kant). In your short essay, answer the following. Also, respond to a peer post. Explain how Kant’s moral law is like, and unlike,  the “Golden Rule” (“Do unto others as you would have done unto you.”) How is it similar and how is it different? What does it mean? What does it imply or entail? What conclusions can you draw from this? Feel free to use examples from real life or imagined ones.

Papers must be 3-4 pages, neatly typed in 12-point Times New Roman font, numbered, doublespaced, with 1-inch margins on all four sides, on plain, white paper, 8.5 x 11. The first page must include the course name, term, your full name, your email, and the essay question/topic at the top ofthe first page. Don’t forget the bibliography at the end of the essay.The Essay Question is : What is religion? Analyze and discuss the problems in defining religion.

Be precise in your speech. Difficulties in communication are often caused by ambiguity, and a lack of clarity. This chapter should help us get better at defining our terms, and knowing how to decipher well reasoned argument from sloppy imprecise argument.1. Summarize the basic problems, principles, and methods of Logic.6. Assess the arguments found in passages of philosophical/psychological literature.Grading RubricFull Credit: Completes all exercises assigned, and answers most questions with correct answers. Answers illustrate an adequate grasp of the material, and  illustrate a satisfactory degree of effort. Formatting is easy to follow, and any writing is coherent and grammatically sound.

QUESTION (JOURNAL PROMPT):. Imagine if you were to engage in a dialogue with Dr. King about your strengths and weaknesses? Whatdo you think he would say to you? Utilize the framework generated by the three dimension of a completelife (length, breadth, and height) to articulate your strengths and weaknesses: which qualities, attributes,characteristics of yours do you feel good about, what aspects would you like to develop further andcultivate?1. Do you love, care, and respect yourself correctly?2. How would you describe your relationship to others? Are you generous, giving and selfless, or do youtend to reduce others to merely a means to an end.3. (Optional) Do you have a substantial relationship with a higher Being, or do you tend to neglect yourSpiritINSTRUCTIONS:What I am looking for is at least two paragraphs of honest, sustained reflection (7 POINTS)Plus, please take the time to write a thoughtful, considerate response to at least two other posts (7POINTS)Not only do I want you to get the degree and job you want, but I also want you to know yourself in asubstantial manner. The objective of this assignment is to help you generate knowledge of the Self,enjoy!

MOVIE: iRobot 1. A brief (1 paragraph) summary of the plot 2. A an explanation to the philosophical questions (from Unit 1 or 2) posed in the film and how the film answers them (2-3) paragraphs o You should identify at least 2 philosophical questions posed by the film, and an explanation of how the film responds/answers the question. 3. You should identify at least 1 philosopher who would agree with the films response to the question, and give a response to the film as if you were the philosopher ( paragraph) 4. You should identify at least 1 philosopher who would not agree with the films response to the question, and give a response to the film as if you were the philosopher (1 paragraph) 5. Review should be approximately 2-3 pages (500-750) in length, double-spaced 6. An APA title page 7. An APA Reference List (including appropriate reference for the film, and any additional research you may have done)

Synthesizing and Writing When looking for information about a particular issue, how often do you try to resist biases toward your own point of view? This assignment asks you to engage in this aspect of critical thinking. The assignment is divided into two (2) parts. For Part I of the assignment, you read a critical thinking process: “The Believing Game and How to Make Conflicting Opinions More Fruitful” by Peter Elbow. , reviewed the Procon.org Website in order to gather information, and engaged in prewriting to examine your thoughts. In Part II of the assignment, you will write a paper to synthesize your ideas. Part II – Writing Write at three to four (3-4) page paper in which you: State your position on the topic you selected for Assignment 1.1. Identify (3) three premises (reasons) from the Procon.org website that support your position and explain why you selected these specific reasons. Explain your answers to the “believing” questions about the three (3) premises opposing your position from the Procon.org website. Examine at least two (2) types of biases that you likely experienced as you evaluated the premises for and against your position. Discuss the effects of your own enculturation or group identification that may have influenced your biases. Discuss whether or not your thinking about the topic has changed after playing the “Believing Game,” even if your position on the issue has stayed the same. The paper should follow guidelines for clear and organized writing: Include an introductory paragraph and concluding paragraph. Address main ideas in body paragraphs with a topic sentence and supporting sentences. Adhere to standard rules of English grammar, punctuation, mechanics, and spelling.

Consider these questions: What is philosophy? What are the main areas of philosophy? Ask these same questions to 3 to 5 friends or colleagues. Summarize their responses and your own in an essay form. Have your thoughts changed since reading the beginning chapters? How? Why do you think it might be important to learn philosophy? Compare these to your own thoughts and feelings on the matter.

For questions that ask you to elaborate on objections to arguments or positions or to build up the plausibility of arguments or positions using reasons not found in the textbook, please do not rely on secondary material. Rather, try to use your own thinking and extrapolate/elucidate your reasoning with your own examples/analogies/etc. o Be clear where you are glossing a view and where you are advancing a view. Examples, : according to so and so , as so and so also said, if you don’t have this its assumed its your writing. According to. o Be very clear about stating how you go from one line of thinking to another. Even if it seems ridiculous. THE BOOK IS LOCATED HERE https://1drv.ms/b/s!AmQblgL037gZgUxguNSozJC0nQTP?e=QYrSRh QUESTION 1 (STARTS ON PAGE 180 IN BOOK) Considering “”Aesthetic Appreciation of Nature and Environmentalism,” (i) outline the main argument as found in the textbook, (ii) outline three new arguments raised by Sana, myself, or any of the participants in the presentation of the piece in the recorded Zoom meeting, and (iii) outline three arguments against positions raised by either the article itself, by Sana, by myself, or by any of the participants in the recorded Zoom meeting. Zoom video is here https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_Pvc3RjVf5CsqDONJWce6D-j3ICqK_mc/view?usp=sharing QUESTION 2 (STARTS ON PAGE 319 IN BOOK) With respect to “An Essay on the Principle of Population” (the written piece and the student presentation), (i) outline the author’s main argument (identify key premises, concepts, inferential links, any sub-conclusions, and the conclusion; (ii) provide two arguments not anticipated in the reading itself that challenge the one or more of the author’s premises and/or their conclusion; and (iii) provide two arguments not anticipated/suggested in the reading itself that support one or more of the author’s premises and/or their conclusion Zoom video is here https://drive.google.com/file/d/1A39mgI-HmiNZu1gTy7wrc_5-kqaa-kZ9/view?usp=sharing QUESTION 3 (STARTS ON PAGE 290 IN BOOK) Considering “Confronting Climate Change Denial,” (i) outline the main argument as found in the textbook, (ii) outline three new arguments raised by Gurpreet, myself, or any of the participants in the presentation of the piece in the recorded Zoom meeting, and (iii) outline three arguments against positions raised by either the article itself, by Gurpreet, by myself, or by any of the participants in the recorded Zoom meeting. Zoom video is here https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NPU1uApzOBThPHVPYSZ6_BcrXRhFCa47/view?usp=sharing QUESTION 4 (STARTS ON PAGE 326 IN BOOK) With respect to “Can the Supply of Natural Resources Really Be Infinite? Yes!” (both the written piece and the student presentation on this piece), (i) outline the author’s main argument (identify key premises, concepts, inferential links, any sub-conclusions, and the conclusion; (ii) provide two arguments not anticipated in the reading itself that challenge the one or more of the author’s premises and/or their conclusion; and (iii) provide two arguments not anticipated/suggested in the reading itself that support one or more of the author’s premises and/or their conclusion. Zoom video is here https://drive.google.com/file/d/1m82j5rVYoc93dxWo3CFwvoup8SrhPgvp/view?usp=sharing WHAT TO DO AND WHAT TO AVOID 1) When providing an elucidation of an article’s argument, do not provide a sort of summary that is written in a kind of chronological sense. This is to say, do not write it as you might a book report. Instead, try to isolate the most pertinent concepts and claims and connect them together to produce an account of how the authors premises/reasons/claims are connected to produce a sub-conclusion/conclusion, or, where applicable, a series of sub-conclusions that lead to a final conclusion. 2) While elucidating, identify potential counter-arguments that the author(s) anticipates and how those counter-arguments are addressed. 3) Try as much as possible to put ideas/arguments into your own words in elucidating the article. If you are using the article’s words, you MUST quote and cite appropriately. 4) When creating arguments, try as much as possible to come up with these arguments on your own. You may borrow ideas here and there (and if so, cite), but overall, the arguments should be your own. Anyone can use google. 5) When borrowing words and ideas, if the words are exact, they must be in quotes and a citation must follow every sentence with borrowed words. There should not just be one citation at the end of the argument/paragraph. 6) When writing arguments, you must be as explicit as possible in outlining the reasons (premises) for your overall claim (argument). An argument is a set of reasons, connected (and explain how they are connected), that lead to a conclusion or final claim. Many of you left out parts of this recipe for an argument. An argument=series of premises, inferentially linked, which lead to a conclusion. By “inferentially linked”, I mean you must explain, explicitly, how your premises lead to the conclusion you advance. 7) Many of you write using unclear referents. If you see a comment to the effect of “ref?”, this means that the marker cannot tell to what some word or concept you have written is referring. For instance, many of you write ‘it’, ‘this’, etc. in ways that leave it open as to what these words stand for or to what they refer. 8) When producing arguments, consider a few possible objections and try to respond to them. 9) When producing arguments, use analogies or examples to bolster your arguments. 10) When I’ve indicated that you should advance arguments not already anticipated or addressed by the author(s) themselves, I really do mean it! 11) In the case of some of you, your grammar really does affect the reader’s ability decipher your claims. Please use spell check, the multiple free grammar checks that are available online, or have someone proofread your written work prior to submitting it. 12) As I have separated the “questions” with sub-numbering – i.e., (i), (ii), etc. – please include the sub-numbering in answering the test so that the reader can clearly and quickly identify which part of the “question” to which you are attending. 13) Try to make it clear where your are paraphrasing someone else’s view and where your view begins/ends.

Write at three to four (3-4) page paper in which you: State your position on the topic you selected. Identify (3) three premises (reasons) from the Procon.org website that support your position and explain why you selected these specific reasons. Explain your answers to the “believing” questions about the three (3) premises opposing your position from the Procon.org website. Examine at least two (2) types of biases that you likely experienced as you evaluated the premises for and against your position. Discuss the effects of your own enculturation or group identification that may have influenced your biases. Discuss whether or not your thinking about the topic has changed after playing the “Believing Game,” even if your position on the issue has stayed the same. The paper should follow guidelines for clear and organized writing: Include an introductory paragraph and concluding paragraph. Address main ideas in body paragraphs with a topic sentence and supporting sentences. Adhere to standard rules of English grammar, punctuation, mechanics, and spelling. Your assignment must follow these formatting requirements: This course requires use of Strayer Writing Standards (SWS). The format is different than other Strayer University courses. Please take a moment to review the SWS documentation for details. Based on the guidelines in SWS, “A well-researched assignment has at least as many sources as pages.” Since this assignment requires you to write at least 3-4 pages, you should include at least 3-4 references. The specific course learning outcomes associated with this assignment are: Identify the informal fallacies, assumptions, and biases involved in manipulative appeals and abuses of language. Create written work utilizing the concepts of critical thinking. Use technology and information resources to research issues in critical thinking skills and informal logic.