philosophy

These are the questions that have to be answered in the philosophy essay 3 pages double spaced MLA style.  Have you ever experienced the emotion of anguish, abandonment, and despair in the profound, existential sense that Sartre believes is part of the condition? (Stick with Sartre’s definitions, not your own) Do you think experiencing these emotions is a useful barometer for determining your efforts to escape from your freedom?

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.

Please write a structural summary of Plato’s Phaedrus, from the beginning through Socrates’ second speech. Please avoid any other Platonian/ general philosophy that is not mentioned in this part of the book, as it has to be very text-specific. Here are specific guidelines set by the instructor:   DO NOT quote. This is a re-presentation, not a photocopy. No quotes. DO NOT use examples. When students come to the end of their understanding, they say “for example.” But if you have adequately said what the example is an example of, you don’t need the example; and if you haven’t, the example is not an example of anything. No examples. DO NOT use footnotes. This paper is not a scholarly, no less a pseudo-scholarly, paper. I know which book you are talking about. No footnotes. DO NOT use “and,” “also,” “In addition,” etc. This is the toughie. A structural re-presentation deals with relations; we want to exclude from it such connections, or rather pseudo-connections, as fail to make relations, that merely put things in sequence or in proximity. To that end no “ands,” no “alsos,” no “in additions,” etc. Whenever you are tempted to use one of these, push to a relation; it will always be there.   Some DOs: DO define all terms. To the text, please; ask yourself what, for example, Aristotle means by “rhetoric.” You won’t find it in the dictionary, or by looking into your heart. DO make relations explicit. Use words like “therefore,” “thus,” and phrases like “as a consequence.” But use them honestly; make sure that you really have the author’s relation.

Once you know the basic rules of logic, you need never be susceptible to a bad argument ever again. Scan a newspaper, magazine, blog, or website to see if you can find an example of a logical fallacy. You might find that the editorial page of the newspaper provide lots of great examples. Also look for logical fallacies and appeals to emotions in commercials, both on the radio and on television. Share what you find by providing a link, where possible. When you cannot provide a link, describe what you heard/saw and explain what fallacy you think it is and why. Again, locate and identify a fallacy in the media. When you share the fallacy you’ve found, be sure to: a) Describe the article, commercial, or whatever you find that commits a fallacy b) Identify which fallacy you think it is committing c) Describe why your example fits the description of the fallacy being committed Guidelines: Length: 750 – 1,000 words (this should amount to roughly 3-4 pages, double-spaced, Time New Roman font, with 1-inch margins) Format: MLA or APA (I am familiar with both, so either is fine; for whichever you choose, be sure to maintain consistency and accuracy in abiding by the standards)  Sources: Papers must include at least 3 academic sources  In-Text Quotations: Your paper must include at least 3 quotations from either your module readings or from other academic sources

Scholarly Arguments [WLOs: 1, 2, 3] [CLOs: 1, 2, 3, 5] In the Week 1 Presenting Arguments assignment, you objectively and neutrally evaluated reasoning on each side of your question from non-scholarly sources. For this assignment, you will objectively and neutrally evaluate and present the reasoning from scholarly sources on the same question. For an example of how to complete this paper, take a look at the Week Three Example paper (in the classroom). Be sure to incorporate any relevant feedback you got from the instructor on your first paper. Conduct research from scholarly sources on each side of your issue and write a paper that includes the following: Introduction (approximately 100 words) Explain your topic and state the specific question that you are addressing. Presentation of an Argument Describe the scholarly source on one side of the issue. Summarize the key points made. (approximately 100 words) Present what you see as the main argument from that source in standard form with the premises listed above the conclusion. (approximately 100 words) Evaluate the quality of the reasoning in this source. You may address questions such as how adequately the article supports the premises with research and how strongly the premises of the argument support the truth of the conclusion. (approximately 200 words) Presentation of an Opposing Argument Describe the scholarly source on the other side of the issue. Summarize the key points made. (approximately 100 words) Present what you see as the main argument from that source in standard form, with the premises listed above the conclusion. (approximately 100 words) Evaluate the quality of the reasoning in this source. You may address questions such as how adequately the article supports the premises with research and how strongly the premises of the argument support the truth of the conclusion. (approximately 200 words) Evaluation of Arguments in Non-Scholarly and Scholarly Sources (approximately 200 words) Discuss the differences in the quality of the reasoning or in the degree of support in the sources that you analyzed (Scholarly and Popular Resources (1) (Links to an external site.)). Some specific types of questions you might address here include: Who is the target audience? What types of motives may be influencing these authors? Discuss any logical fallacies in any of the sources. Conclusion (approximately 50 words) Reflect on how this activity might influence how you conduct research in the future. Writing help is available 24/7, every day of the year, right when you need it! Click HERE to instantly connect with an online writing tutor or to submit your paper for a writing review. Papers are returned within 24 hours with a revision plan. Use Grammarly (Links to an external site.) to get immediate grammar feedback. Use the Writing Center website (Links to an external site.) for many additional writing guides and resources. The Scholarly Arguments paper Must be 900 to 1,500 words in length (not including title and references pages), double-spaced, and formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center’s APA Style (Links to an external site.) Must include a separate title page with the following: Title of paper Student’s name Course name and number Instructor’s name Date submitted For further assistance with the formatting and the title page, refer to APA Formatting for Word 2013 (Links to an external site.). Must use at least three scholarly sources in addition to the course text. The Help! Need Article  (Links to an external site.)tutorial can also assist with searching for The Scholarly, Peer-Reviewed, and Other Credible Sources (Links to an external site.) table offers additional guidance on appropriate source types. If you have questions about whether a specific source is appropriate for this assignment, please contact your instructor. Your instructor has the final say about the appropriateness of a specific source for a particular assignment. To assist you in completing the research required for this assignment, view this Ashford University Library Quick ‘n’ Dirty (Links to an external site.) tutorial, which introduces the Ashford University Library and the research process, and provides some library search tips. Must document any information used from sources in APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center’s Citing Within Your Paper guide. (Links to an external site.) Must include a separate references page that is formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center. See the Formatting Your References List (Links to an external site.) resource in the Ashford Writing Center for specifications. Carefully review the Grading Rubric (Links to an external site.) for the criteria that will be used to evaluate your assignment.

Analyzing Reasoning on Both Sides [WLOs: 1, 2, 3] [CLOs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5] This final writing assignment allows you to present an analysis of the best reasoning on each side of your issue. In the process, you will get to demonstrate some of the key skills you have learned during this course. In particular, you will demonstrate the ability to create high-quality arguments on both sides of an issue, to support your reasoning with scholarly sources, and to provide a fair analysis of the strength of the reasoning on each side. Use the same topic as you did on your previous papers and make sure to incorporate any relevant feedback you got from the instructor on your previous writing assignments. For an example of how to complete this paper, take a look at the Week 5 Example paper (in the classroom). Your paper must include the following sections, clearly labeled: Introduction Introduce readers to your topic; include a brief preview of what you will accomplish in this paper. (approximately 150 words) First Argument Present the best argument on one side of the issue. (approximately 150 words) Express your argument in standard form, with the premises listed one by one above the conclusion. Defense for First Argument Support the first argument as well as you can, using academic sources to demonstrate the truth of key premises. You may also choose to clarify the meaning of key premises and to explain how your reasoning supports the conclusion (approximately 250 words). Opposing Argument Present the best argument on the other side of the issue (approximately 150 words). Express your argument in standard form. Defense of Opposing Argument Support the opposing argument as well as you can, using academic sources to demonstrate the truth of key premises. You are welcome as well to clarify the meaning of premises and/or to explain the reasoning further (approximately 250 words). Analysis of the Reasoning (approximately 350 words) Evaluate the quality of each argument, addressing whether key premises are true and whether the conclusion logically follows from them. Analyze arguments for any fallacies committed or for any biases that may influence either side. Do you feel that one argument makes a much stronger case than the other and why? (There is no need to “take sides,” only to assess the quality of the arguments.) Support your analysis with scholarly sources. Conclusion (approximately 150 words) Provide a brief conclusion and summary of your issue and how it can best be addressed by critical thinkers. Writing help is available 24/7, every day of the year, right when you need it! Click HERE to instantly connect with an online writing tutor or to submit your paper for a writing review. Papers are returned within 24 hours with a revision plan. Use Grammarly (Links to an external site.) to get immediate grammar feedback. Use the Writing Center website (Links to an external site.) for many additional writing guides and resources. The Analyzing Reasoning on Both Sides Final Paper Must be 1,200 to 1,600 words in length (not including title and references pages), double-spaced, and formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center’s APA Style (Links to an external site.) Must include a separate title page with the following: Title of paper Student’s name Course name and number Instructor’s name Date submitted For further assistance with the formatting and the title page, refer to APA Formatting for Word 2013 (Links to an external site.). Must use at least three scholarly sources in addition to the course text. The Help! Need Article  (Links to an external site.)tutorial can also assist with searching for The Scholarly, Peer-Reviewed, and Other Credible Sources (Links to an external site.) table offers additional guidance on appropriate source types. If you have questions about whether a specific source is appropriate for this assignment, please contact your instructor. Your instructor has the final say about the appropriateness of a specific source for a particular assignment. To assist you in completing the research required for this assignment, view this Ashford University Library Quick ‘n’ Dirty (Links to an external site.) tutorial, which introduces the Ashford University Library and the research process, and provides some library search tips. Must document any information used from sources in APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center’s Citing Within Your Paper guide. (Links to an external site.) Must include a separate references pages that is formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center. See the Formatting Your References List (Links to an external site.) resource in the Ashford Writing Center for specifications. Carefully review the Grading Rubric (Links to an external site.) for the criteria that will be used to evaluate your assignment.

Specialists in communication are often hired to clean up problems created by unthoughtful messaging. While advocates dedicate significant amounts of time and energy promoting causes, they often struggle to clearly identify their logical positions. To further the problem, in light of clear arguments advocates commonly utilize informal fallacies to persuade their target audiences. These weaknesses tend to create easily avoidable communications crises. The first step is to identify the communicative problems.  For this assignment, identify a social issue you are personally interested in learning more about, advocating for the cause, or are against it, and identify fallacious reasoning. In 750-1,000 words: Research an advocate (individual or organization) that promotes a relevant social issue. Identify the organization and explain the relevancy of the social issue.   Show the steps you took to translate the position/argument you researched into a clear logical form by writing out the logical premises and conclusions from the material presented by the advocate. Identify a minimum of five informal fallacies that are made by the advocate. Explain the fallacies themselves and how each functions. At least two academic peer-reviewed sources are required for this paper.

The written work contains two parts:   A)”functionary-but-concise part”: write a short summary (2 pages) of ‘biological function’ in your terms (no need to summarize the entire texts – stick to sections and elements in the pdf ). Here, pick important elements, arguments, positions, questions and write a coherent short summary of it.   B) “free-and-creative part” (2 pages): you connect the topic of your summary of ‘biological function’ and you discuss in what sense your smartphone, given its importance for your life and its causal interaction between you and the smartphone, is actually a functional part of you. You can also have for instance some other debate, some question you’re wondering about, some journal article or movie that can be linked to it. Here you’re completely free to exploring some element, question or application.

1. In the video, Paul Churchland suggests that rationalism is motivated by a misguided quest for absolute certainty. Why does he says this? Are rationalists more likely to seek deductive or inductive arguments? Explain. What about empiricists? Again, explain. 2. According to John Locke, all of our ideas are either simple ideas that come directly from sense impressions or complex ideas that are composed of those simple ideas. Explain the distinction between simple and complex ideas using an example. According to Hume, is the idea of causation simple or complex?  3. Why is it a problem for empiricists to explain how our sense impressions correspond to mind-independent objects? 4. Explain Kant’s view of causation and contrast it with Hume’s view. Specifically, explain why Kant thinks that the concept of causation is “a priori” and what that means. Video links:   https://fod.infobase.com/OnDemandEmbed.aspx?token=71361&wID=17150&plt=FOD&loid=0&w=640&h=480&fWidth=660&fHeight=530 https://fod.infobase.com/OnDemandEmbed.aspx?token=71362&wID=17150&plt=FOD&loid=0&w=640&h=480&fWidth=660&fHeight=530

In order to understand the argument of Alexandra and Miller (PDF file — not in textbook), this discussion board asks you to think about fundamental needs that are provided by modern professions. (1) what fundamental need defines the role of that profession and (2) how do we know that it is a fundamental need in our society? (Each thread must address a different profession!) I pick the “Medicine” for profession