1 – 2 paragraphs.
first Journal
What is the philosophical method? Have you used it? How?
Second Journal
1 – 2 paragraph
Socrates said to his jurors, “Are you not ashamed that, while you take care to acquire as much wealth as possible, with honor and glory as well, yet you take no care or thought for understanding truth, or for the best possible state of your soul?” Do you agree with this attitude? Why or why not?
It is fine if the question is two sentences or more, but you can make it longer if you wish. I prefer the question to be longer. This question will be used to motivate class discussion, so if I do not think that an honest attempt to ask something relevant to the reading, then you will not receive the payout for this task. This is for Philosophy class.
Once you have made the questions, please highlight in the text where that question came from or where the relevance of the question came from. I hope that made sense. The questions shouldn’t be general questions anybody could come up with without reading the text. The question should show that I have read the reading. So after you read the given text, just come up with a question.
There are two readings you have to read; after doing that, you have to come up with a question for each reading.
Questions to Consider: Aristotle and Virtue Ethics
As you go through this week’s readings, I kindly ask that you consider the following items:
While it’s certainly true that man-made artifacts have a clearly defined purpose—the knife is designed in order to be able to cut things, an automobile is designed in order to efficiently transport goods and people from one point to another, etc.—would you say that something as complex as a human life has an in-built “goal” or “purpose,” and if so, why do you think human beings tend to disagree so vehemently about what that purpose is? Lastly, do any of you agree with Aristotle’s claim that, since logos(reason/speech) is unique to humanity, it must therefore be man’s defining characteristic in and through which the human being realizes his/her highest excellence? Why or why not?
Questions to Consider: Aristotle and the Good Life
It truly amazes me that everywhere you turn you see images of celebrities glorifying hedonism (i.e., the view that bodily pleasure is the highest good in life), and yet we all seem to realize on a gut level that cheap gratifications and vulgar amusements does not conduce to deep and lasting satisfaction in life. Why do you think so many people fail to realize this and continue to chase after false goods? Furthermore, do any of you think it is at all conceivable that there are some individuals in the world who are capable of deriving deep and lasting satisfaction from fame, wealth, and pleasure? Or is it fundamentally impossible, as Aristotle wants to argue, that a human being (which is a composite of soul and body, each with its own needs) can enjoy true happiness entirely through the pursuit of bodily gratification?
BACKGROUND
Our previous readings and films have been building on one another, so that we are able to open new
dimensions to what it means to be virtuous in the 21st Century. This week we go a step further to
connect the virtue of anger with the aim of becoming a person willing to struggle against their own
oppression.
MATERIALS
Begin by listening to my guided reading of our materials using eli clare’s » Stolen Bodies, Reclaimed
Bodies | Eli Clare and Andrew Pulrang, Response to Crip Camp. I also have notes about critical
thinking. Here are my full notes: Thinking Critically_ Crip Camp with notes (1)(attached below). I
uploaded this lecture to a link , so it is easier for you to speed up, slow down, or watch on different
devices.
Next, review Aristotle’s political philosophy and beliefs about the necessity of a ruling (and ruled)
order. Links: Presuppositions of Aristotle’s Politics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
an argumentative essay (introduction, thesis, defense, consideration of counterarguments, weighing of arguments for and against the thesis, summary and conclusion) on any topic raised in the textbook or the reader (using the essay format to explore an idea or practice in the philosophy of education that interests you – to defend a good idea or attack a bad one
BACKGROUND
The film, Crip Camp, is centrally concerned with protagonists who meet during the 70s at a recreational camp for young people with disabilities. There is a great deal of laughter, joy, and liberation contained in the film, but it also gives us a chance to learn a lot about anger as a virtue (to use Aristotle’s term) and as a catalyst for change.
We will return to this film to illustrate and unpack several of our ethical frameworks, but I want you to simply pay close attention to its protagonists and the times when anger plays an important role in their actions and values. We will NOT be viewing its central figures as victims trapped inside a stereotypical narrative but as fully realized individuals. Next week, we will go more deeply into the field of Disability Studies and how this scholarship has impacted the discipline of Ethics.
MATERIALS
Read this 1-page passage from Aristotle on anger: Aristotle on Anger.(view the attached sheet)
Watch the Netflix film, Crip Camp, here: https://youtu.be/OFS8SpwioZ4. Note: “Crip” is a reclaimed slur. It is fine to use in the context of the film but should not be used without context in everyday discussion. We will talk about this more next week.
PROMPT
Judith Heumann with Larry Allison, James LeBrecht, Denise Sherer Jacobson, and Stephen Hofmann make up the central protagonists portrayed in the film, Crip Camp. Please focus on one of these individuals and be as specific as possible in trying to describe how they ‘practice’ the ethical virtue of being angry in the right (middle) way in Aristotle’s sense. Note how they tailor their responses to specific encounters and relationships, whether they seem to have gained wisdom and ease with a specific virtue, and how for all their efforts they may not be able to immediately or ever get the results they desire. Do you believe that that Aristotle is correct and there is a ‘middle way’ to be angry?
I want you to answer the question in SIMPLE LANGUAGE.
No plagiarism should be found.
I want the response to be half to one page in length.
Also, please let me know which character you chose to write on.
Examine how a philosopher challenges your assumptions about ethics by doing the following:
Explain how the philosopher in the Gateway into Philosophy resource challenge your assumptions about what’s right and what’s wrong.
Identify one argument or thing they say that challenges or questions your assumptions. Include a quote from the Gateway into Philosophy resource in your discussion.
Discuss what you learned by examining the ethics of the philosopher?
Make sure to:
Use what you have learned in the Required Readings about World Philosophy, your own cultural background, experiences, judgments and reasoning to answer these questions.
Use at least one quote from this week’s Required Learning Resources, and one from the Gateway resource in your answer. Make sure to provide in-text citations for both quotes in MLA format.
Provide references for all sources in MLA format.
Using the attached reading, please write one of the following:
1. A question about the content of one of the assigned readings of the week, which indicates that you have carefully read the reading and have thought about it.
2. A 200-250-word summery of the following part of “On the Notion of Cause”: p. 9, paragraph 2 (the paragraph starts with “(1) “Cause and effect must more or less resemble each other.””) up to the end of the first paragraph of p. 12 (the paragraph ends with “are wholly groundless”).
The movie(Minority Report) play on the idea of determinism being true. For instance, the system of predicting murders must hold that actions are determined by outside forces that can be measured. However, the determinist might have a problem. If all actions are determined, then it doesn’t follow that actions could be controllable and therefore punishable? But they do in fact punish the perpetrators with a halo device that removes them from existence almost. How might a determinist respond?
Response Papers:The student may choose five (5) philosophers or philosophies covered in the textbook and compose a 1-2 paged typed single-spaced lines 12pt font size philosophical response argument (case) either for or against that philosopher’s ideas or philosophy.(*A student may request another topic other than one from the textbook and write on it only with the instructor’s approval) The student will read the pages in the textbook covering the subject and then make a rational argument either in favor or opposed to that position. (example: the existence of God: argue either for or against the existence of God making note of the arguments given in the textbook) Each paper will be graded by correct grammar, spelling, composition and argumentation (how well you make your point)
(-1) one point will be taken away for each of following:
(-1) late papers submitted after due date
(-1) point will be taken away for bad grammar, spelling, and composition
(-1) less than one (1) full complete text.
(-1) double-spaced lines rather than single-spaced lines
(-1) not 12pt font size letters
(-5) points will be taken away for poor argumentation.
***MOST IMPORTANT: Please always remember to cite your sources in either foot or end notes and bibliography. A possible failing grade will be accessed for clear plagiarism and/or failure to cite your sources
the textbook is: Philosophical Conversations: A Concise Historical Introduction by norman melchert
everything is attach below on how every thing should look