Category: Philosophy : Philosophy

problematizirati Platonov metafizički svijet i ideje kao
bitak nasuprot Aristotelovom realizmu da postoje primarno pojedinačna bića/stvari tj.
supstancije, možete krenuti i s tezama poput u svijetu u kojem ne postoje pravokutni
trokuti i dalje vrijedi/ne vrijedi Pitagorin poučak ili ne, ili nešto slično tome
Uvod: definirajte svoju tezu o temi koju ćete pisati,
ukratko objasnite temu
Razrada: obrazlažete one dijelove teme koji su
relevantni za vašu tezu, iznosite svoj argument ili
protuargument, pokušavate dokazati svoju tezu
primjerima, objašnjenjima…u središnjem dijelu se
iznosi argumentacija i kritička analiza
protuargumentacije. Elementi središnjeg dijela
eseja su logično povezani
Zaključak: iznosite svoje vrednovanje svega
navedenog čime zaključujete tekst, iznosite
zaključak koji slijedi iz prethodnih dijelova, ne
donosite ništa novo

Okay, this paper needs a lot of work. It doesn’t really seem to understand Walzer’s position, which is that only in *extremely rare* conditions can a state set aside jus in bello principles. Look at the comments. You need first to get very clear on what, according to Walzer, constitutes a supreme emergency; and why those specific conditions might justify violating the principle of discrimination. You can proceed based on a correct understanding of what Walzer is trying to argue for. please highlight your changes.

Please indicate if you agree with Aristotle that friendships are essential to happiness and whether you think that “perfect” friendships are the only ones that may genuinely bring happiness to a person.  I want you to contribute your past experiences with happiness, practicality, or ideal friendships in order to enhance the original post.

I have a draft written but I just need you to encorporate the comments from my professour and get it to 2500 words

At one point in its history, the tango was popular in the world of Buenos Aires’s
brothels. Toward the end of the 19th century, young immigrants — single, male, working
class — who had come to Argentina to try their luck would seek comfort in the drink,
entertainment and female companionship there. Argentines as distinguished as Jorge
Luis Borges have insisted that the tango was born in these brothels. Others vehemently
deny it. But the fact remains that the tango has preserved something of the anguish of
the young and uprooted who danced it there.
Theirs is quite a performance. These men we see panting on the dance floor are not
some ordinary youths seeking to entertain themselves. They’re people who have gone
through the meat-grinder of uprooting and survived it; they’ve come as close to death as
one can without dying. It seems that the memory of a personal catastrophe, followed by
a miraculous survival, has somehow remained inscribed in the dance’s movements. Part
of what makes the tango so erotically charged is that death is always so close at hand. To
this day the tango has carried with it this uncanny mix of vulnerability and strength.
•
There are many types of uprooting. The brutal expulsions like those now devastating
hundreds of thousands in countries like Iraq and Syria are common in the cycles of
politics and war. But it can be more subtly political, too, as was Dante’s banishment
from Florence at the hands of the Black Guelphs, or economic, as it was for the
immigrants dancing in the Argentine brothels. Each person who survives this uprooting
and finds himself in exile experiences an existential earthquake of sorts: Everything
turns upside down, all certitudes are shattered. The world around you ceases to be that
solid, reliable presence in which you used to feel comfortable, and turns into a ruin —
cold and foreign. “You shall leave everything you love most: this is the arrow that the
bow of exile shoots first,” wrote Dante in “Paradiso.”
From Ovid to Dante to Czeslaw Milosz, exile has been portrayed as a catastrophic event.
If such an uprooting comes to the exile as a form of death, it is not just his own death,
but that of the world that dies with him and in him.
To live is to sink roots. Life is possible only to the extent that you find a place hospitable
enough to receive you and allow you to settle down. What follows is a sort of symbiosis:
Just as you grow into the world, the world grows into you. Not only do you occupy a
certain place, but that place, in turn, occupies you. Its culture shapes the way you see the
world, its language informs the way you think, its customs structure you as a social
being. Who you ultimately are is determined to an important degree by the vast web of
entanglements of “home.”
Uprooting is a devastating blow because you have to separate yourself overnight from
something that, for as long as you can remember, has been an important part of your
identity. In a sense, you are your culture, customs, language, country, your family, your
lovers. Yet exile, should you survive it, can be the greatest of philosophical gifts, a
blessing in disguise. In fact, philosophers, too, should be uprooted. At least once in their
lives. They should be exiled, displaced, deported — that should be part of their training.
For when your old world goes down it also takes with it all your assumptions,
commonplaces, prejudices and preconceived ideas. To live is to envelop yourself in an
increasingly thicker veil of familiarity that blinds you to what’s under your nose. The
more comfortable you feel in the world, the blunter the instruments with which you
approach it. Because everything has become so evident, you’ve stopped seeing anything.
Exile gives you a chance to break free. All that heavy luggage of old “truths,” which
seemed so only because they were so familiar, is to be left behind. Exiles always travel
light.
The redeeming thing about exile is that when your “old world” has vanished you are
suddenly given the chance to experience another. At the very moment when you lose
everything, you gain something else: new eyes. Indeed, what you eventually get is not
just a “new world,” but something philosophically more consequential: the insight that
the world does not simply exist, but it is something you can dismantle and piece
together again, something you can play with, construct, reconstruct and deconstruct. As
an exile you learn that the world is a story that can be told in many different ways.
Certainly you can find that in books, but there is no deeper knowledge than the one that
comes mixed with blood and tears, the knowledge that comes from uprooting.
Exiles travel light because they barely exist. And that’s another important lesson
philosophers can learn from exile: Uprooting gives you the chance to create not only the
world anew, but also your own self. Deprived of your old world, your old self is left
existentially naked. It is not only worlds that can collapse and be rebuilt, but also selves.
Selves can be re-made from scratch, reassembled and refurbished. For they, too, are
stories to be told in different ways. Often with uprooting there also comes a change of
languages, which makes the refashioning all the more fascinating. You can fashion
yourself in very much the same way a writer fashions her characters.
•
Socrates rarely left his native Athens, yet he fully understood the philosopher’s need to
practice uprooting if they are do their job properly. He refashioned himself into a
foreigner as a matter of philosophical method. As a recent biographer put it, Socrates
claimed “to be a foreigner in his own city, even to the extent of not speaking the Attic
dialect.” Not content with just taking an “ironical distance” from the Athenians, he
deliberately uprooted himself from the city, cut off his ties and burned his bridges.
Socrates turned himself into an outsider in his own city, but didn’t move to another. He
became “átopos,” which meant “out of place,” but also “disturbing” and “perplexing.”
Being átopos is crucial if you are to be a straight-talking philosopher, as Socrates was.
There is in every community something that has to remain unsaid, unnamed, unuttered;
and you signal your belonging to that community precisely by participating in the
general silence. Revealing everything, “telling all,” is a foreigner’s job. Either because
foreigners do not know the local cultural codes or because they are not bound to respect
them, they can afford to be outspoken. To the extent, then, that philosophy is exposure
of “everything,” especially of things no one wants to hear about, foreignness is highly
necessary for its practice. The philosopher, at least the straight-talking kind, is bound to
remain a metaphysical gypsy.
Socrates’ case is telling. Like few others he saw the philosopher’s need to uproot himself
from his own community. Yet he refused to go into an actual exile himself, preferring
instead a symbolic one. He lived in Athens as if he were a foreigner. This means that he
practiced philosophy as a rather dangerous pursuit. Such a tightrope walking can never
take you too far, especially when you, performing it with no safety net, make incessant
fun of your audience.
An Argentine poet called the tango “un pensamiento triste que se baila”: a sad thought
that is danced. I am not sure. The tango is not just something sad — it is sadness itself
that is danced. The ultimate sadness that comes from the earthquake of uprooting. If
philosophers don’t manage to get them themselves exiled, at least they should take up
tango for a while.                                                                                              Read the article below and describe a moment in your life that you felt the need to create an “exile.” if you would rather, describe something that you feel the need to “exile” from. from a philosophical point of view, explain the positives you see in an exile.

A recurring theme in the chapters on epistemology and ethics has been the dichotomy of reason/emotion.  Various authors have favored either reason or emotion as the most promising source of knowledge, whether knowledge of the physical world around us oror knowledge of morality, what is right or wrong to do in a given situation. Compare and contrast one of the following pairs of authors on this issue, and argue for the view you believe is more convincing/plausible/accurate
I attached a recent paper that I wrote over Rene Descartes and John Locke. It would be great if this format is used. I also have to use sources from “Fifty readings in Philosophy” fourth edition by Donald C. Abel

Only answer this question. Use the sources listed ONLY. No outside sources. When writing the paper, have an argument and counter argument structure. I will attach a sample paper example on how to structure and write the paper.
Question: Consider the case of Tony Nicklinson (Topping, “Locked-in syndrome victims lose right to die’ case”). Should Nicklinson be able to have a doctor’s assistance in ending his life? Why or why not? Defend your answer carefully and in detail. (I have attached a pdf of the case called the case)
Use only the sources and the case.

Students are required to express and defend their opinion on whether Socrates ought to be executed for his philosophical practice.  The essay should be argumentative in nature, which means that students should take a stance on the issue and give strong arguments for their position that the reader should follow. 
A minimum of three direct quotations is required.  Essays are to be in MLA format.

Pick EITHER question 1 OR 2: Only answer ONE question
When you pick which question to work on, use the sources listed for that question ONLY. No outside sources. When writing the paper, have an argument and counter argument structure. I will attach a sample paper example.
Question #1:
Recently, an individual made an anonymous donation of $7 million to Edgewood College, a small liberal arts college in Wisconsin.1 (I have attached a pdf of the article.) How would a psychological egoist argue that this act, by the donor, was purely self-interested? Is the psychological egoist correct, or incorrect? Defend your answer carefully and in detail.
Sources: the article online and the pdf titled question #1 sources – 1
OR
Question #2:
Consider some of the potentially controversial practices regarding animals: • Use for food and clothing • Factory farming • Cosmetics testing • Medical testing and experimentation • Animals engaging in dangerous or difficult work (draft animals, military or police animals, etc.)
Discuss whether some or all of these practices are wrong, given the moral consideration that is due to animals. Among the questions you might want to consider in addressing this topic (though this list should not be considered exhaustive): • What kind of moral consideration do animals deserve? • What is it that confers moral status? (Or do you agree with Rachels that “moral status” is not a useful philosophical concept?) • Do some highly-intelligent animals deserve greater moral consideration than non-sentient or low-functioning humans (for example, humans in a persistent vegetative state)? • How do we weigh human vs. animal interests, when the two conflict?
Sources: the pdfs question #2 sources 1,2 and 3

Comparing Plato and MLK jr. On the following issues: the good; justice; leadership. Who gives the most convincing account, or the truest account, of how people in a society can live ethical lives? On what points would you take issue with their views?