Category: Philosophy : Philosophy

“Students will write a 7-8 page (2,100-2,400 words) analytical essay on an assigned topic. The essay should be double-
spaced in Times New Roman 12-point font with 1” margins. The essay should consistently use a citation format (such as
APA or Chicago). In addition to using the authors that we have read in the course as primary sources, students must
consult and cite appropriately at least 3 scholarly sources in the paper. A scholarly source could be a professional
journal article in a philosophy journal or a book or book chapter in a scholarly monograph published by an academic
press (for example, Oxford, Cambridge, Chicago, Harvard, Princeton, and others). Provide a total word count at the end of the paper.”
Dualism versus Monism in Descartes and Hobbes: Hobbes saw the simplicity and unity of his understanding of human psychology as decisive. He asserted that phenomena such as perception, imagination, and memory could all be understood as matter in motion. In claiming this, he developed an account of the mind without positing the existence of non-corporeal entities, such as the soul. In your paper, sketch Hobbes’s account of human psychology in Leviathan and argue for the view’s strengths or weaknesses. Then compare Hobbes’s monism with Descartes’ dualism, assessing which is able to explain a wider range of phenomena.
a. Ed Curley, “Hobbes versus Descartes”
b. Richard Tuck, “Hobbes and Descartes”
c. Tom Sorell, “Hobbes and Aristotle”
I also provided a reviewed Rough Draft

“Students will write a 7-8 page (2,100-2,400 words) analytical essay on an assigned topic. The essay should be double-
spaced in Times New Roman 12-point font with 1” margins. The essay should consistently use a citation format (such as
APA or Chicago). In addition to using the authors that we have read in the course as primary sources, students must
consult and cite appropriately at least 3 scholarly sources in the paper. A scholarly source could be a professional
journal article in a philosophy journal or a book or book chapter in a scholarly monograph published by an academic
press (for example, Oxford, Cambridge, Chicago, Harvard, Princeton, and others). Provide a total word count at the end of the paper.”
Dualism versus Monism in Descartes and Hobbes: Hobbes saw the simplicity and unity of his understanding of human psychology as decisive. He asserted that phenomena such as perception, imagination, and memory could all be understood as matter in motion. In claiming this, he developed an account of the mind without positing the existence of non-corporeal entities, such as the soul. In your paper, sketch Hobbes’s account of human psychology in Leviathan and argue for the view’s strengths or weaknesses. Then compare Hobbes’s monism with Descartes’ dualism, assessing which is able to explain a wider range of phenomena.
a. Ed Curley, “Hobbes versus Descartes”
b. Richard Tuck, “Hobbes and Descartes”
c. Tom Sorell, “Hobbes and Aristotle”
I also provided a reviewed Rough Draft

What you need to complete this assignment:
Loss Prevention Interview Transcripts for Michael, Sarah, and Rachelle.
Transcript of Security Camera Footage.
Office Layout Map.
Steps to complete:
Step 1: Review the transcripts of all three employees and the map and the transcript of the security camera footage
Note: Do not use any other sources. Space for notetaking is provided
Step 2: Determine the most relevant information needed to construct the best possible timeline based on the provided sources.
The information you choose to include (and exclude) will be an important part of your timeline clarity and accuracy. Ensure information is placed properly
Step 3: Create a timeline based on the information you’ve determined is most relevant. The timeline template is located in
Step 4: Download your complete timeline Once downloaded, review the timeline for accuracy and completeness. Edit as needed.
Note: The timeline template provided in the has a set number of blank areas for you to fill. If you decide there are fewer or a greater number of events than the spaces provided, you can add or remove entries to your timeline after downloading the template.

Read Thomas Nagel’s “The Absurd” (available in D2L). Make sure you understand
Nagel’s main point about absurdity as well as his other, related arguments.
2. Write an essay on ONE of the following topics.
a. Do you agree with Nagel’s distinction between ordinary and philosophical types of
absurdity?
1. Exposition
First, and most importantly, you should give a careful exposition of Nagel’s argument. This should constitute approximately 1/2 of your essay. Make sure that your exposition is focused. In other words, if you are dealing with one part of Nagel’s argument, there is no need for you to summarize the whole paper. You are partly being evaluated on your ability to focus your paper on the topic that you are interested in. Ask yourself: What is the structure of Nagel’s argument? What are his premises? What are his conclusions? What support does he offer for his premises? (You may, if you wish, set out part of all of Nagel’s argument in standard form, as part of your exposition. But if you do this, you must still describe the argument: in
other words, the standard form cannot be the entirety of your exposition.)
2. Critical Evaluation
Second, you should offer a critical evaluation of exactly one part or aspect of Nagel’s
argument. This should come in the second part of your essay, after the exposition, and should constitute approximately 1/2 of your essay. Your critical evaluation should be narrowly focused, and should be directed specifically at one aspect of Nagel’s argument. Your critical evaluation might, for instance, address one of the following questions: How well does Nagel set out his topic? Are there defects in either his conception of the topic or of the relevant notions involved? (Be specific.) How successful is one part or aspect of Nagel’s argument? (Be specific.). Does Nagel’s conclusion follow logically from his premises? Why, or why not? (Be specific.)
Other Instructions:
Before you start writing, please consult the document entitled “Notes on Reading and Writing Philosophy” for details on what is expected in a critical exposition. This document is available in D2L.
You may use secondary sources in writing this essay, but this is neither required nor
encouraged. Whether or not you use secondary sources, you must include a reference list at the end of your essay, listing the sources you used in writing the paper (even if this is just the primary source, Nagel).
It is expected that your essay will be formatted in accordance with the generally accepted standards for written academic work. Papers that fail to meet these standards may be penalized; in extreme cases, they will not be graded. Please make sure that your essays are formatted in the manner described in the document entitled “Expectations Concerning Academic Writing”, also available in D2L. Please pay particular attention to the section entitled “Quotation, Attribution, and Acknowledgement”, which contains information about plagiarism.

Final Paper Topic:
– We noted that there is often a difference between broad guiding principles and specific rules to follow. Both the formal/material norm and professional codes of ethics discussions noted instances when a broad guideline might not be helpful in resolving a particular ethical dilemma. For your final paper, you will first identify the relevant code of ethics for your major. You will then identify an ethical dilemma within your field (normally an area of controversy) and analyze the professional code of ethics in light of that problem.
– Identifying a controversy might be tricky – an ethical problem might already have a solution (e.g., if the conduct is illegal, it is likely that the code of ethics already prohibits it). You are looking for areas and issues where professionals are uncertain as to what they ought to do. Consider whistleblowing as discussed in class: it is entirely possible that a particular professional practice may fall into ethically/legally gray territory. It represents a conflict between perceived duties to one’s employer and perceived duties to the public. While protections ostensibly exist, many whistleblowers face significant professional repercussions and are hesitant to sacrifice their personal or professional well-being. At the same time, many people would want whistleblowers to warn them of dangers in products and structures. How should the professional proceed? How does the professional code of ethics handle the great potential for self-sacrifice?
– A strong final paper will address questions like these, exploring issues in law and philosophy. As this is a course in applied ethics, the bulk of your paper should be exploring the ethical reasoning behind your position – what philosophical principles are at stake? Why do they matter?
Paper requirements:
– Your final paper must be 8-10 pages (full text, not partial pages) and at least 2500 words.
– Your final paper must incorporate research from at least 8 sources that are:
-> Peer-reviewed
– Published after 2000
– 8+ pages in length
– Formatted in Times New Roman, 12 pt font, and double-spaced.
– No additional spaces after paragraphs
– No added lines to headers/footers
Paper Methods of Evaluation:
1. Response to topic- 20%:- Addresses the topic clearly and responds effectively to all aspects of the task.
2. Understanding and use of supporting documents and resources, if applicable (includes transitions & commentary) -20%:- Demonstrates a thorough critical understanding of the activity, issue, or idea in developing an insightful response.
3. Quality & Clarity of thought-20%:- Explores the issues thoughtfully and in-depth.
4. Organization Development Support -20 %:- Coherently organized with ideas supported by apt reasons and well-chosen examples.
5. Syntax & Command of Language-10%:- Has an effective, fluent style marked by syntactic variety and clear command of language.
6. Grammar, Usage, Mechanics -10 %:- Is generally free from errors in grammar, usage, and mechanics.
Writing Tips:
Important: This page contains information that will help you approach your final paper.
General Paper Writing Tips
College papers (and philosophy papers in particular) are not like high school writing – this is not a five paragraph essay. You are developing a strong position on a complex topic over the course of a semester, so your work must reflect a high level of effort. I’ve been producing college and professional-level writing for over 25 years at this point, so there are a few tips and tricks I’ve learned which can help you.
Don’t write linearly. You don’t want to write your introduction, then your body paragraphs, and then your conclusion. This encourages writing to meet the paper minimums, which tends to lower the quality of the argument. Your thesis page serves as an outline for the final paper, so write your body paragraphs first and see where it takes you. It isn’t uncommon for new or different ideas to occur as you are writing them. Generally, it is best to write your body paragraphs first, then your conclusion (to see where the argument took you), and then your introduction (what you need to include in order to set the stage for your argument).
Revisit your writing repeatedly. Writing is a recursive process – you need to go back and reread what you have written periodically to see how it all hangs together. It is entirely possible that your thoughts are getting disjointed as you write and that sections of text may be more appropriate elsewhere in your paper (or in a different order). Use your voice and read what you’ve written out loud. Your ears will catch things that your eyes do not.
Worry about formatting after you get the text out. Your final paper must be 8-10 pages and 2500 words (minimum) formatted in 12pt Times New Roman, double-spaced, with 1″ margins and no extra spaces between paragraphs. This does not mean that you have to format your paper like this from the start. When I write, I start with single spacing and 10pt or 12pt font and I write in sections (so different sections of my writing have different files). Once I am satisfied that my argument is complete, I will put the sections together and see where it stands in terms of length (professional publications often have both minimum and maximum word counts). The math is pretty simple – if I have four complete pages of text, I know that will be 8 pages when it is double-spaced. I’ve found that if I worry more about meeting the minimum length, the quality of my writing suffers. If I focus more on the quality of my writing, the length is generally there. The ideas matter more, especially on complex topics. If we are giving complex topics adequate attention, paper length shouldn’t be an issue. If we are only providing superficial discussion (or skipping around between a variety of topics), we aren’t demonstrating understanding or mastery and these papers tend to have more fluff to meet length requirements. It’s painfully obvious when a paper is written this way.
Don’t rely on quotes. Strong writing normally paraphrases – it is uncommon (and, in fact, relatively rare) for a research paper/article to contain block quotes (and if they are present at all, they represent at most 10-15% of the paper). Stronger writing shows how material is integrated into a larger position – the articles referenced are shown to support and inform the argument being made. Block quotes are not arguments in themselves, nor are they original content. Papers that are reliant on block quotes or bullet point lists generally earn lower grades as they reflect less actual effort. Bullet point lists are especially egregious and are better served by summaries or inclusion as an appendix instead of the body of the paper.
Care about what you are working on. The language you use matters. Mistakes like grammar, spelling, and word choice matter. My grandfather told me that everything we put our name on reflects on who we are. If your final paper is sloppy (writing, formatting, alphabetizing sources and keeping fonts consistent, etc., etc.), then that reflects on your work ethic. You have fifteen weeks to work on your ideas and their expression – your final paper needs to reflect that. This is a professional environment even though you are all learning new material and skills. There are still expectations that need to be met and good habits that will need to be formed – they will help you in your other coursework and your professional lives. Even if you don’t buy into the idea that your work reflects on you, recognize that many recruiters and companies are looking for people who are effective communicators in professional environments.

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.