First, introduction and well addressed biograph about lbn Rushd and his importance as a Muslim scholar in Al Andalus. Second, his importance in philosophy and his work The Incoherence of the Incoherence, which is rebuttal of Ghazali’s book Incoherence of the Philosophers, and how Ibn Rushd defended philosophy and counter al Ghazal’s book and his philosophy.
Category: Philosophy
In his article Famine, Affluence, and Morality, (beginning on page 235), Peter Singer spoke about the distinction between duty and charity. He said that in our society, Because giving money is regarded as an act of charity, it is not thought that there is anything wrong with not giving. The charitable man may be praised, but the man who is not charitable is not condemned.
Singer further explained how people do not feel in any way ashamed or guilty about spending money on new clothes or a new car instead of giving it to famine relief. Singer concluded, This way of looking at the matter cannot be justified. We ought to give the money away, and it is wrong not to do so.
Please answer the following question:
Does Peter Singers above view remain consistent with his main thesis from the article? Fully explain your answer and when doing so, be sure to clearly state Singers main thesis, in your explanation. (100 points)
8. The Elephant in the Room
We have argued that most of the accounts of love we’ve considered this semester at best get only part of the story of love right. In particular, we argued that many theories of love give a necessary, but not sufficient, condition on love. For example, recall Firestone’s account whereby love is a state of mutual vulnerability. It may be true, then, that
If X loves Y, then X and Y are mutually vulnerable to one another.
Indeed, let us just simply grant for the sake of argument that love implies mutual vulnerability. That is, let us grant that mutual vulnerability is a necessary condition on love. It seems another and much more difficult proposition to accept that mutual vulnerability implies love. That is, mutual vulnerability does not also seem to be a sufficient condition on love, since it seems false to say that
If X and Y are mutually vulnerable to one another, then X loves Y.
To show this, all we need is an example where we have mutual vulnerability, but no love. Give such an example to show that Firestone has at most captured a small part of the phenomenon of love. Can you conduct similar analyses for Singer, Nozick, Baier, and Frankfurt? If so, do so. If not, do you think the theory indeed fully accounts for love? Why or why not?
9. Love is not love Which alters when it alteration finds
Use Frankfurt’s account of love to explain and justify Shakespeare’s famous Sonnet 116.
Let me not to the marriage of true minds
Admit impediments. Love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds,
Or bends with the remover to remove:
O no! it is an ever-fixed mark
That looks on tempests and is never shaken;
It is the star to every wandering bark,
Whose worth’s unknown, although his height be taken.
Love’s not Time’s fool, though rosy lips and cheeks
Within his bending sickle’s compass come:
Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,
But bears it out even to the edge of doom.
If this be error and upon me proved,
I never writ, nor no man ever loved.
Is the thesis you find expressed in Sonnet 116 true? Using examples, explain why or why not.
Each of the speakers in The Symposium has something to say about what love is, and in doing so they give different, though not necessarily contradictory, answers to the question, why do we seek romantic love? In other words, it is one thing to understand what love is, quite another to understand why we desire it so strongly. For example, Pausanius would argue that we seek (higher) love because it leads us to greater human excellence: The Ancient Greeks, note, valued almost nothing more than the idea of fostering human excellence or virtue. Aristophanes, on the other hand, argued that we seek love because we seek the other half of us from which we were split by the gods.
Explain why we seek romantic love according to Socrates, Augustine, Firestone, Nozick, and Frankfurt. Setting theory aside for a moment, why do you seek, or why have you sought, romantic love? Which theory (of all those we’ve considered) comes closest to the reasons you give? Explain your answer.
Reference and discuss at least two authors opposing (i.e.one for and one against) perspectives of the ethical issues raised by the topic. (Preliminary Version)
a. The two authors opposing perspectives were relevant, balanced and discussed in an insightful manner. (20 points)
b. The two authors opposing perspectives were relevant, balanced and/or discussed in an insightful manner, but not all three. (15 points)
c. Only one relevant author and/or ethical perspective was referenced. (10 points)
d. No authors ethical perspectives were referenced. (0 points)
this is third time that i order from you. It is still the same paper based on your write
Reading: St. Augustine, The City of God, pp. 156 86
The editors of our text point out that there is an ambiguity in the claim: the good is what God wills. That is, it must mean one or the other of the following two statements:
1) God wills what is good because it is good
2) What is good is good because God wills it
In the first statement, what is good is that way because of its own inherent goodness, whether or not God wills it. Its goodness stands on its own so to speak. But, because it is good, God wills it.
In the second statement, a thing has no inherent goodness. Its goodness is externally determined by Gods will.
(Note: Those of you who took Philosophy of The Human Person with me will recognize this as the Euthyphro Dilemma.)
In your discussion post please do the following:
1) Identify which of the two statements you tend to agree with.
2) Develop a sincere argument in support of the statement you DO NOT agree with.
3) Carefully describe how the argument you created in 2) is not really persuasive. (In other words, argue against what you argued in 2.)
4)Write two challenging questions about this topic
Read Sandel’s ch. 8, Who Deserves What? and Watch Sandels Episode 10. Answer ONE of the following in your short essay. Also, post a peer response. Remember, as usual, to cite from the book (see rubric for more).
1. Explain Aristotles theory of the median or golden mean. Give examples.
2. Come up with at least one criticism of Aristotles theory of moral virtue. Explain.
3. What does teleological thinking mean? Give one of your own examples. What strength AND weaknesses does it have?
GO TO: (http://www.justiceharvard.org/watch/)
AND WATCH : Episode 10 Aristotle: Telos and Freedom (see ch. 8)
PART ONE: THE GOOD CITIZEN
Aristotle believes the purpose of politics is to promote and cultivate the virtue of its citizens. The telos or goal of the state and political community is the good life. And those citizens who contribute most to the purpose of the community are the ones who should be most rewarded. But how do we know the purpose of a community or a practice? Aristotles theory of justice leads to a contemporary debate about golf. Sandel describes the case of Casey Martin, a disabled golfer, who sued the PGA after it declined his request to use a golf cart on the PGA Tour. The case leads to a debate about the purpose of golf and whether a players ability to walk the course is essential to the game.
PART TWO: FREEDOM VS. FIT
How does Aristotle address the issue of individual rights and the freedom to choose? If our place in society is determined by where we best fit, doesnt that eliminate personal choice? What if I am best suited to do one kind of work, but I want to do another? In this lecture, Sandel addresses one of the most glaring objections to Aristotles views on freedomhis defense of slavery as a fitting social role for certain human beings. Students discuss other objections to Aristotles theories and debate whether his philosophy overly restricts the freedom of individuals.
Please show you are watching the videos by citing the Sandel lecture minute:second (in case I want to go back to it). Similarly with the audio lecture; comment on it and incorporate it into your discussion. Finally, cite the book, by putting in the page number, e.g. Sandel 22.
Read Chapter 7 of the Steneck text (Links to an external site.). Prepare 2-3 paragraphs that address the following:
1. Address each of the questions at the end of Chapter 7 of the Steneck text. Your answers can be brief.
2. Imagine that, five or ten years from now, you are running a laboratory similar to the one you are in now and that you supervise graduate students and/or postdocs. How would you mentor them? Are there ways you would mentor them that are different from the ways you are currently mentored? What forces might cause you to not mentor your future graduate students and/or postdocs in the ways you now view to be desirable?
Please answer the question using only the attached pdf files. When citing in-text please use the word “Reader” and the page number on the side of the pdf file. Thank you.
1. In his 1784 essay “What is Enlightenment?” Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as “man’s release from his self-incurred tutelage”. “Tutelage,” he wrote, “is man’s inability to make use of his understanding without direction from another. Self-incurred is this tutelage when it cause lies not in lack of reason but in lack of resolution and courage to use it without direction from another. Sapere aude! “Have courage to use your own reason!”–that is the motto of enlightenment.” (page 103) Based on your readings on the relationship between human and technology since the eighteenth century, do you think humanity has attained “Enlightenment”? In the course of your discussion, make sure to make references and critically engage with assigned texts. Draw in depth on at least two of the major readings to support your argument.
All essays should be in MLA format, double spaced, with a 12 point type.
It is fine to use outside sources like the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP online) when studying philosophers, but when you write your papers dont directly use material from any source. Do not quote from sources in your essay. Also, for essays only, don’t use any first-person pronouns (I, me, my, and mine).
Paper Subject:
What are the main theories of the self? What is the best explanation of personal identity? Is there such a thing as the self?
