Category: Philosophy

i would like to use the philosoper socrates to discuss the following topic of human rights to demonstrate equality for all in many aspects within our society

Instructions
Right.
The knee-jerk reaction is the way of society, right now, eh?
“In my opinion…”
Have you learned to consider, to look deeper into things, to research — to do some philosophy??
To make your time and life count??
Consider this URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_philosophy (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site./ (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. – you see that  uncertainties run deeper than racism, politics, religions, and inequality.
What is yours — what issue is your passion?
DIG INTO something you really care about: cats, sports, fashion, cats, health care, engineering, dogs, cooking, cats… for whatever you have a passion — a show me in five (or so) pages that you can understand it with some philosophical depth when it comes to the ethics involved. The Philosophy of My Love and Reason for Living!!!  Well, yeah… not quite that crazy. 
Need at least four quotes/facts from respected thinkers to back your ideas, MLA heading, abstract, cites, works cited — the usual stuff.

I’m posting my assigemnt and you need them for this assigments,so feel bfree to take that and put that on presentation,I need help to organize everything 

I am going to be attaching my paper.I only need the citation to be correct my proffesor 
corrected the first two citation the rest need to look like that.I will attach my paper and 
another documnet on how citation should look like.The second is just a guide on what type 
citation he wants 

How does Machiavelli’s concept of virtue (virtù) differ from the “traditional” view (i.e., of Plato and Aristotle)? Explain
Please use this source: http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince00.htm

Due Date: 11:59pm May 5.
Total Length: 1,200 words (+/- 10%)
Weighting: 30%
For this assignment you will need to write a short essay answering a single (i.e. just one) question. You have several questions to choose from, covering the second unit on epistemology and logic. Do not answer more than one question. Your essay should be 1,200 words (+/- 10%).
Essay Questions: PHIL10002 Essay 2 Questions.pdf
Actions
You are not required to do wider research beyond the required and recommended readings already contained in the course. The aim is to critically engage with particular ideas and arguments that we have studied. You are welcome to do wider reading, but keep in mind that it is better to engage deeply with fewer ideas than to engage shallowly with many.

Instructions
Exercise 1
Write each of the following arguments into standard form:
Plato will graduate only if he bribes his instructors. But Plato does not bribe, never has, never will. Therefore, Plato will not graduate.
In the absence of interesting activities in the world life would be boring. But I don’t find life boring—in fact—life is not boring. Therefore, there must interesting activities in the world.
If the washing machine is disconnected, nothing will get washed. But it is connected, I plugged it in myself. So, we will be able to wash.
Your gas bill will be acceptable provided that you do not use more that X many units a month. But you never do use more than X units a month, so your bill will be acceptable.
If Socrates is a dogbomber, then he will have trouble holding down a job. Knowing Socrates, he definitely will have trouble holding down a job, so he must be a dogbomber.
Label the premises (P) and the conclusion (C); you can use the line (“——–“) to separate the conclusion from the premises.
Identify which inference form is used in each of these (affirming the antecedent, affirming the consequent, denying the antecedent, or denying the consequent).
And then, state whether the inference (the argument) is valid or invalid Additional Information
Conditional Statements
If … the cat is on the mat … then … the dog is in the yard
(P) (Q)
The antecedent the consequent
Different ways of representing the conditional:
“P implies Q” “if P is true, then Q is true” “P → Q” “P Ↄ Q” Note: The statement “if P then Q” is a false statement only
when its antecedent statement P is true but its consequent Q is false; otherwise the statement “If P then Q” is true.
Therefore,
When P is false, then “If P then Q” is a true statement
When Q is true, then “If P then Q” is also a true statement
Two Valid Inference Forms (and two invalid forms.)
Valid
A. Modus Ponens (affirming the antecedent)
1. P → Q If P is true then Q is true (P implies Q)
2. P P is true (affirms the antecedent of premise 1)
—————————————-
3. Q Q is true
Given that, assuming that, 1 and 2 are true then it is not possible for Q to be false
also Valid
B. Modus Tollens (denying the consequent)
1. P → Q If P is true then Q is true (P implies Q)
2. ~ Q Q is not true (denies the consequent of premise 1)
———————————
3. ~ P P is not true
If P truly implies Q, but Q is false, then P must be false
Note that these two inference rules come right out of the meaning of the statement “If P is true, then Q is true”.
Negating a conditional
If statement S is true, then…
not-S, or ~ S, or ⌐ S are false
If S is a conditional statement, If P then Q, then to negate it it must be negated this way:
not- (If P then Q). The “not” must go on the outside of the parenthesis so that the whole expression is negated. The statement ” if not-P then Q” with “not” inside says something different.
Note also that asserting ” Not- (if P then Q) ” is logically equivalent to asserting “P and not-Q”,
i.e. asserting that P can be true while Q is not
Invalid – These are Formal Fallacies (they violate logical form)
Denying the antecedent is a fallacy
1. If P is true then Q is true
2. P is false (denies the antecedent of premise 1)
—————
Q is false This argument form is invalid
Even though P implies Q, so might other things. P being false does nothing to Q’s truth status, one way or the other
also a Formal Fallacy
Affirming the consequent is a fallacy
1. If P implies Q
2. Q is true (affirms the consequent of premise 1)
————-
P is true No, this is an invalid inference
Stylizations of conditional statements: If P then Q
These are different ways of stating “If P then Q”, different ways of translating “If P then Q”.
P is a sufficient condition for Q
Q is a necessary condition for P
Q is so if P is so (‘so’ roughly meaning true)
Q provided that P
P only if Q is so
Only if Q is P so
Given that P is so, then Q
Not-P unless Q
Assuming P, then Q
Note: “if” dictates antecedent. For example, “P if J” means “If J then P”. It has nothing to do with the letters. It is the logic of “if”.
But the word “only” alters things. The statement “if P then Q” means the same thing as “P only if Q”., or “only if Q is the case, is P also the case”. Thus “if” and “only if” are different. “If” indicates a sufficient condition and logically will identify the antecedent. “Only if”, on the other hand, indicates a necessary condition and logically identifies the consequent.
The above are all variations (translations) for saying “If P then Q” or “P implies Q”
Before starting homework Exercise 1` be sure to review the above translation rules (or stylizations) for conditional statements (right above); and also especially review the material starting at the top about conditionals and the inference forms (some are valid and some are not).
For the homework start off with this exercise – call it Exercise 1 Do the exercise offline first so that you have it ready to copy and paste it into the submission device.
These are exercises on argument forms involving conditional propositions. Re-write each of the following arguments into standard form: Plato will graduate only if he bribes his instructors. But Plato does not bribe, never has, never will. Therefore, Plato will not graduate.
In the absence of interesting activities in the world life would be boring. But I don’t find life boring—in fact—life is not boring. Therefore, there must interesting activities in the world.
If the washing machine is disconnected, nothing will get washed. But it is connected, I plugged it in myself. So, we will be able to wash.
Your gas bill will be acceptable provided that you do not use more that X many units a month. But you never do use more than X units a month, so your bill will be acceptable.
If Socrates is a dogbomber, then he will have trouble holding down a job. Knowing Socrates, he definitely will have trouble holding down a job, so he must be a dogbomber.
Each argument will have the premises listed first, and then the conclusion at the bottom. Label the premises P for each premise and C for the conclusion. You can use the line (“——–“) to separate the conclusion from the premises. Identify (state) which inference form is used in each of these (is it affirming the antecedent, affirming the consequent, denying the antecedent, or denying the consequent?)
Explain whether the inference (the argument) is valid or invalid. (remember, these are only exercises in deduction—do not get involved with inductive assessments about the truth of the premises.
HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENT
Exercise 1 above), Display each of those five arguments into standard form. Identify which inference form is used in each, and explain whether the inference (the argument) is valid or invalid.
Again, just repeating the exercise specifications:
Re-write each of those five arguments into standard form: that is a list with one sentence per line; the premises listed first, and then the conclusion at the bottom.
Label the premises (P) and the conclusion (C); you can use the line (“——–“) to separate the conclusion from the premises.
Identify (state) which inference form is used in each of these (affirming the antecedent, affirming the consequent, denying the antecedent, or denying the consequent).
And then, state whether the inference (the argument) is valid or invalid. (remember, these are only exercises in deduction—do not get involved with inductive assessments about the truth of the premises.

I have linked the prompt with multiple options to choose from. I will provide you with the readings, please add some in-text citations. I can also link the previous papers I wrote to help with similarity. Thank you for the help, I will leave a tip for good quality.

A 2.5 to 3 double spaced paper on Hume and Descartes on the a priori proof for God regarding to Philosophy. The paper is to expand on the ideas talked about in the text which will be provided below and can be counted as source. Only essay topic A should be written, all other topics should be ignored. I will provide any other additional text if needed.
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/4583/4583-h/4583-h.htm
__________
General Paper Instructions
Assignment: 2.5 to 3 double-spaced page paper (no less than two full pages please)
The paper should be expository in nature. By expository, I mean that you should primarily strive to make sense of (i.e. explain) the ideas, arguments and views expressed in the text(s) rather than to provide your own critical analysis of them. The purpose of the paper is to demonstrate the depth of your comprehension of the text(s) and to showcase your ability to interpret and make sense of subtleties and complexities of the author’s thought. Consequently, you will need to substantiate your interpretation with direct reference to the text(s) in question, in the form of quotations or, preferably, paraphrases. Always include page numbers for these references, such as (p. 24) and indicate which work you are citing if it is not absolutely clear (i.e., Meno or Meditations) The key to a good paper is to be specific, concrete and focused. Be sure to avoid making vague generalizations. Make sure that you back up your claims with textual support. In fact, every non-trivial claim in your paper should be accompanied by some sort of textual reference (to either primary or secondary sources). Make sure that your thesis is formulated clearly and explicitly in the first paragraph and that the body of your paper (i.e., every subsequent paragraph) directly supports that thesis. I expect to see well-written, well-organized, polished prose: coherent sentences, a natural flow from sentenced to sentence, unified paragraphs and transparent transitions from paragraph to paragraph.
Clear writing can only result from clear thinking. So, first and foremost, you must get to know the material that you chose to write about—read it and read it often, before you begin to write. I suggest that you start writing well before the deadline so that you have time to revise your ideas and edit your writing. Also, I suggest that you have a family member, friend or classmate or fellow philosophy club member read a draft for clarity. You are also encouraged to take advantage of Metro’s Writing Center (KD 3rd floor).
Although you must provide textual support of you claims (by cite page numbers), you are free to be creative in your responses. So, for instance, you are free to compose your essay in the form of a dialogue between Descartes and Socrates, Chomsky, Nagel, etc. But if you go that route, you must still offer something like a “thesis statement,” strive for clarity and provide textual support for you claims. Rubric:
Although I do not assign grades based on a rubric, I offer the following rubric for your own benefit. It will give you a sense of the kinds of things that I hope to see in a paper. Total points for the assignment correspond to the following grade:
16 to 20 total points = A
11 to 15 total points = B
6 to 10 total points = C
1 to 5 total points = D
0 total points = F
I. “Thesis” or statement of student’s position 4. Specific position (thesis, perspective or hypothesis) is sophisticated, interesting and original, and it reflects a comprehensive awareness of the nuances and complexities of the relevant philosophical issues/problems.
3. Specific position may not be original or imaginative, but it is articulated in a sophisticated manner that reflects a comprehensive awareness of the complexities of the relevant philosophical issues/problems.
2. Specific position is relevant and stated clearly, but reflects only a basic awareness of the relevant philosophical issues involved. 1. Specific position is stated, but is either obvious or trivial, and it reflects partial or inadequate awareness of the relevant philosophical issues involved. 0. The statement of one’s position is irrelevant, unintelligible, or absent.
II. Evidence/Explication:
4. Successfully identifies and masterfully explicates the texts, passages and aspects of an author’s work that are most relevant to the student’s position. 3. Successfully identifies the texts, passages and aspects of an author’s work that are most relevant to the student’s position, and appropriately explains or explicates some, if not all, of them. 2 Partially identifies and adequately explicates the texts, passages and aspects of an author’s work that are most relevant to the student’s position. 1. Identifies the some of the texts, passages and aspects of an author’s work that are relevant to the student’s position, but fails to identify the most important texts, passages and aspects of an author’s work or fails to explicate them adequately.
0. Fails to identify and explicate relevant texts. III. Analysis 4. The analysis is fresh and exciting, posing new ways to think about the material, and it clearly and compellingly relates “textual” evidence to the student’s position. 3. The analysis is compelling, if not original, and it consistently relates “textual” evidence to the student’s position.
2. The analysis sometime relates “textual” evidence to the student’s position, but the connections are not always clear or compelling. 1. The analysis only minimally supports the student’s position.
0. The paper lacks analysis, or the analysis fails to support the student’s position.
IV. Contextualizing
4. Clearly demonstrates command of the broader philosophical theories and ideas (of the authors/texts under consideration) by situating the specific evidence in the appropriate argumentative contexts and by articulating some of the relevant implications of the student’s analysis.
3. Demonstrates adequate awareness of the broader philosophical theories by situating the specific evidence in the appropriate argumentative contexts.
2. Demonstrates some awareness of the broader philosophical theories and ideas by attempting to situate the specific evidence in broader argumentative contexts.
1. Demonstrates little awareness of the broader philosophical theories and ideas.
0. Demonstrates no awareness of the broader philosophical theories and ideas.
V. Control of Syntax and Mechanics (including essay structure)
4. Uses graceful language that skillfully communicates meaning to readers with clarity and fluency, and is virtually error free. 3. Uses straightforward language that effectively conveys meaning to readers with few errors.
2. Uses appropriate language that usually conveys meaning to readers with clarity, although the writing may include some errors. 1. Uses language that sometimes impedes meaning because of errors in usage. 0. Uses words that nevertheless I not certain if language this is or what because ; )
ESSAY TOPICS: (Please select ONE AND ONLY ONE topic from the below…a, b, c or d). A) Hume and Descartes on the a priori proof for God:
In Part IX of the Dialogues, both Philo and Cleanthes offer objections to Demea’s a priori proof for God’s existence. Some of these criticisms specifically target Demea’s cosmological proof for God, but others are designed to challenge the credibility of any a priori proof whatsoever. Those broader objections might, therefore, serve to undermine the proofs for God that Descartes puts forth in his Meditations. In your essay, I want you to (a) spell out Demea’s cosmological proof in some detail. (b) Next, explain one or two of the criticisms that Philo and/or Cleanthes mounted against that proof. Finally, (c) I’d like you to consider how Descartes might have responded to these criticisms. Do those objections prove fatal to Descartes’s own proofs for God. If so, why? If not, why not? (You can, if you like, write this paper in the form of a dialogue between Philo, Demea and Descartes.).

Grammar and spelling matter!  Edit and proofread your work.
Minimum 1800 word count, double space, and formatting is up to the student as long as a method is employed. 
Minimum 3 sources for your paper.
Research said topic/philosopher.  Use the CPP library search engine.  For example, write “Determinism” in the search box.
This is also a great source: https://philosophynow.org/
Have a clear introduction stating what will be accomplished in your paper.  Are you arguing for something?  Against something? Are you using Philosophy to analyze a current debate?  A film?  
Do not use more than 2 lengthy quotes (this diminishes the authority of your work).
Do feel free to use smaller quotes to substantiate your work.  
Pick a topic you find interesting!  Ideas: What are your thoughts about the SPE? What it means to be “good”?  Or, do we have grounds for believing in God?  
above are instructions from my teacher; please write about what it means to be a good person according to Aristotle. The first page or two should explain how Aristotle sees it and the rest of the paper is your thoughts on it.