philosophy

Discuss the central assumptions of the postmodern worldview. What is postmodernism?

Describe one specific instance in which you tried to find information to build up your side of an argument but not the other side. Reflect on any advantages and disadvantages of such an approach. While addressing the topic, use an inductive generalization that will have a biased sample.

Compare and contrast nihilism and existentialism

1) First, discuss whether or how some of the categories offered by Held’s Feminist Transformation of Moral Theory could reveal or counter the sexual violence and silencing involved in the current “Me Too” movement. {In you answer consider how serving justice here would require challenging both “cultural conceptions” (social codes) and “structures” (institutions), and thus introduce an alternative notion of “legitimate” social relations (see end of Tommy Curry essay)} 2) after considering Tommy Curry’s analysis of the sexual violence involved in racism: discuss how a Black Lives Matter movement needs to face the challenges involved in dealing with (Young’s) psychological “abjection” (phobic fear/desire), and what difficulties may be involved in Young’s project of “consciousness raising” (asking each to take responsibility for their “practical consciousness” and action), and hopes for a “revolution in subjectivity” (seeing yourself as potentially “other”).

A Polemic is an argumentative text or speech that takes a position contrary to the mainstream, or to another specific argument. Your assignment is to take a newspaper editorial or an excerpt from a longer editorial, approximately 400 – 700 words, and critique its arguments point by point. The polemic should use 1-inch margins, 12 point Times font, be double spaced, and be approximately 1 ½ to 2 pages. provide editorial link to me. Check document for more detailed information.

Introduction Having finished arguments for the existence of God, we have now turned to what philosophical inquiry can know about what God is like (or, according to classical theists, what God is not like), i.e.  “divine attributes” like simplicity, perfection, goodness, omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience, etc. One of the main points of disagreement between classical theists and theistic personalists is whether God is immutable, that is whether God can or does change in any way. Classical theists say “God cannot change. Anything that can or does change in any way is not God.” Consider the following argument from Aquinas: It was shown above that there is some first being, whom we call God; and…this first being must be purely actual, not possessing of any potentiality [to be otherwise], because, considered absolutely, potentiality is posterior to act [i.e. what is potential is not first]. Now everything which is in any way changed, is in some way in potentiality. Hence it is evident that it is impossible for God [the first being] to be in any way changeable.  Summa Theologiae, q. 9, a. 1 Theistic personalists, on the other hand, argue that “God must be able to change and God must actually change. The idea of a being that cannot be different in any way is not an idea of God.” Consider this argument from Grace Jantzen: A living God cannot be static: life implies change… This means that the doctrine of [divine] immutability cannot be interpreted as absolute changlessness, which would preclude divine responsiveness and must rather be taken [to mean] “steadfastness of character.” Grace Jantzen, in A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, edited by A. Richardson and J. Bowden (London, 1983), p. 573 Likewise, another argument is made by Richard Creel: “An absolutely perfect being will have the power of agency, i.e. be able intentionally to cause things to happen. But for an agent intentionally to cause something to happen which was not happening requires that he was not willing it and then began to will it–but to change from not willing something to willing it is to change. Therefore, in order to have this power of agency, an individual must be able to change… Therefore, God must be able to change. Therefore God must be mutable.” Richard E. Creel, “Immutability and Impassibility,” in A Companion to Philosophy of Religion, editec by P. Quinn and C. Taliaferro (Oxford, 1997), p. 314 So, obviously there is great disagreement about this subject. Prompt Based on these quotes and the readings from this week, write a paper on divine immutability. Specifically, consider the following statement, endorsed by Classical Theists: “Only an unchanging and unchangeable God could account for there being a world of changing and changeable things.” In your paper, evaluate the truth or falsity of this statement. If you think it is true, state why it is true and explain why the theistic personalists’ objections to divine immutability fall short. If you think it is false, state why it false and explain why the classical theists’ arguments for divine immutability fall short.  In your paper, be sure to quote and/or cite arguments and reasons from the week’s readings. Instructions Length: Minimum of 500 words. Formatting Requirements: Double spaced, 12 point font, Times New Roman, 1 inch margins Citations: Chicago Manuel of Style. You may use footnotes or parenthetical citations .

Describe the Square of Opposition What is categorical logic? What is the purpose of the Square of Opposition? Identify key features of the Square of Opposition. Explain how the Square of Opposition is used to translate statements into standard-form claims and corresponding standard-form claims including description of the relationships that are depicted within the square. Identify the components of the A, E, I and O standard-form claims (or propositions). Using the diagram in your text as a guide, create one original example using an ordinary statement and translating it into standard-form claims (A, E, I and O statements) using the Square of Opposition. Identify the translation and claims in your example using the corresponding letter. For each corresponding standard-form claim, explain how you identified the translation and corresponding claims and their relationship to one another based on the relationships depicted on the square. In other words, explain why each choice of claim in your example is correct for that particular relationship. Example provided must be original and not taken from our lecture, textbook readings or online resources. Required Elements: Your essay must have an APA style formatted title page and reference list. Your essay should be 2-3 pages (in additional to a title page and reference list) with an introduction paragraph, body paragraphs that address each required portion of the prompt, and a conclusion. Your essay must follow APA style formatting throughout (Times New Roman, 12-point font, double-spaced, etc.). Your essay should include research that consistently supports your presented points and ideas. A minimum of 2 different sources must be utilized and cited properly with in-text citations and in the reference list. Avoid using large amount of quotes. If you summarize or paraphrase information in your own words, you must cite sources to provide credit for the ideas and concepts.

This question has three parts that are all to be answered in a single post. Once you have answered the first two parts (about 100 words for each), the third part asks you to engage in a brief (50 – 100 words) assessment (meaning this time you do not have a choice of what to assess). For the (relatively precise) account of how your answers will be assessed/what’s expected, please refer to the ‘Phil 2080 (Summer 2020) – Forums Grading Rubric’ .pdf posted on the homepage. The Question: a. Describe Dworkin’s distinction between ‘arguments of policy’ and ‘arguments of principle’, then explain why it is he maintains judicial decisions made in hard cases ought to be based on arguments of principle. b. Explain what it means on Dworkin’s account to say that a judicial decision in a hard case must both ‘fit and justify’ previous judicial decisions. c. Offer one reason for thinking that Dworkin’s notion of ‘fit’ is, or is not, problematic.

Pick 2 authors and compare and contrast their views on a contemporary issue. For example, how would Fanon and Newton view the US response to corona virus? How would they agree? How would they disagree? Use your imagination! Requirements: 1000 words or less.

Read the essay at the link, and then in one file answer the 20 questions below as your personal final exam: https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/campuspress.yale.edu/dist/7/272/files/2019/06/joint-review.pdf Part I: The First Action of the Mind (Conceptualization) 1. Quote a sentence from the assigned essay in which a definition is given (citing the page number for your quotation). Is your chosen example a real or nominal definition? If it is real, then is it logical, causal, or descriptive? If it is logical, then distinguish both the genus and the essential difference. If it is causal, then distinguish whether there are formal, final, material, or efficient causes involved. If it is descriptive, then state whether it uses a property or an accident. Part II: The Second Action of the Mind (Judgment) 2. Quote a sentence from the assigned essay in which a universal affirmative Type A proposition is given (citing the page number for your quotation). Rewrite the proposition in your chosen example in standard form, distinguishing the subject term from the predicate term by using single uppercase letters to define your terms. 3. For the Type A proposition in #2 above, state its contrary, its contradictory, and its subalternate (each in standard form, distinguishing the subject term from the predicate term by using single uppercase letters to define your terms, and labelling each proposition Type as A, E, I, or O). 4. If the Type A proposition in #2 above is FALSE, then state whether its contrary is TRUE, FALSE, or UNDETERMINED; state whether its contradictory is TRUE, FALSE, or UNDETERMINED; and state whether its subalternate is TRUE, FALSE, or UNDETERMINED. 5. Quote a sentence from the assigned essay in which a universal negative Type E proposition is given (citing the page number for your quotation). Rewrite the proposition in your chosen example in standard form, distinguishing the subject term from the predicate term by using single uppercase letters to define your terms. 6. For the Type E proposition in #5 above, state: its contrary; its contradictory; and its subalternate (each in standard form, distinguishing the subject term from the predicate term by using single uppercase letters to define your terms, and labelling each proposition Type as A, E, I, or O). 7. If the Type E proposition in #5 above is FALSE, then state: whether its contrary is TRUE, FALSE, or UNDETERMINED; state whether its contradictory is TRUE, FALSE, or UNDETERMINED; and state whether its subalternate is TRUE, FALSE, or UNDETERMINED. 8. Quote a sentence from the assigned essay in which a particular affirmative Type I proposition is given (citing the page number for your quotation). Rewrite the proposition in your chosen example in standard form, distinguishing the subject term from the predicate term by using single uppercase letters to define your terms. 9. For the Type I proposition in #8 above, state: its subcontrary; its contradictory; and its subimplicate (each in standard form, distinguishing the subject term from the predicate term by using single uppercase letters to define your terms, and labelling each proposition Type as A, E, I, or O). 10. If the Type I proposition in #5 above is TRUE, then state: whether its contrary is TRUE, FALSE, or UNDETERMINED; state whether its contradictory is TRUE, FALSE, or UNDETERMINED; and state whether its subalternate is TRUE, FALSE, or UNDETERMINED. 11. Quote a sentence from the assigned essay in which a particular negative Type O proposition is given (citing the page number for your quotation). Rewrite the proposition in your chosen example in standard form, distinguishing the subject term from the predicate term by using single uppercase letters to define your terms. 12. For the Type O proposition in #8 above, state: its subcontrary; its contradictory; and its subimplicate (each in standard form, distinguishing the subject term from the predicate term by using single uppercase letters to define your terms, and labelling each proposition Type as A, E, I, or O). 13. If the Type O proposition in #5 above is TRUE, then state: whether its contrary is TRUE, FALSE, or UNDETERMINED; state whether its contradictory is TRUE, FALSE, or UNDETERMINED; and state whether its subalternate is TRUE, FALSE, or UNDETERMINED. 14. Write the inverse of the proposition in #2 above. Show all the steps involved in the inference. Write all propositions in standard form, distinguishing the subject term from the predicate term by using single uppercase letters to define your terms. 15. Write the inverse of the proposition in #5 above. Show all the steps involved in the inference. Write all propositions in standard form, distinguishing the subject term from the predicate term by using single uppercase letters to define your terms. Part III: The Third Action of the Mind (Argument) 16. Quote a passage from the assigned essay in which you find a syllogism, an enthymeme, or an epicheirema (citing the page number for your quotation). Choose only one argument type. Rewrite each proposition in your chosen example in standard form, distinguishing the conclusion’s subject term from the conclusion’s predicate term, as well as the middle term(s), by using single uppercase letters to define your terms, and labelling each proposition Type as A, E, I, or O. Use square brackets to enclose any unspoken premises assumed in enthymematic reasoning, if applicable. 17. Analyze the argument in #16 above by checking it for validity and then stating whether it is VALID or INVALID. Prove your answer by drawing a Venn diagram for the argument, labeling it according to your analysis in #16 above. If the argument is INVALID, state each one of the four rules which the argument violates. If the argument is VALID, state whether or not it is SOUND, and why. 18. Quote another passage from the assigned essay (different from your example in #16) in which you find a syllogism, an enthymeme, or an epicheirema (citing the page number for your quotation). Choose only one. Rewrite each proposition in your chosen example in standard form, distinguishing the conclusion’s subject term from the conclusion’s predicate term, as well as the middle term(s), by using single uppercase letters to define your terms, and labelling each proposition Type as A, E, I, or O. Use square brackets to enclose any unspoken premises assumed in enthymematic reasoning, if applicable. If you wish, instead of citing another passage, you can paraphrase what you discern the main argument of the entire essay to be, by stating your interpretation as a syllogism, enthymeme, or epicheirema, and then formalizing that argument according to the preceding symbolization instructions for #18. 19. Analyze the argument in #18 above by checking it for validity and then stating whether it is VALID or INVALID. Prove your answer by drawing a Venn diagram for the argument, labeling it according to your analysis in #18 above. If the argument is INVALID, state each one of the four rules which the argument violates. If the argument is VALID, state whether or not it is SOUND, and why. 20. Quote a passage from the assigned essay in which you find a modus ponens argument, a modus tollens argument, a denying the antecedent fallacy, an affirming the consequent fallacy, a sorites, a hypothetical syllogism, a conjunctive syllogism, a disjunctive syllogism, a constructive dilemma, a destructive dilemma, or a reductio ad absurdum argument (citing the page number for your quotation). Choose only one argument type. Symbolize your chosen argument by using the techniques you learned in this course. State whether your chosen argument is VALID or INVALID. Is it also SOUND?