What is a human being? What is knowledge? What is your basis of ethics? What is the purpose of your existence?

Foundational Issues in Christian Spirituality and Ethics

Based on the required topic Resources, write a reflection about worldview and respond to following:

In 250-300 words, explain the Christian perspective of the nature of spirituality and ethics in contrast to the perspective of postmodern relativism within health care.
In 250-300 words, explain what scientism is and describe two of the main arguments against it.
In 750-1,000 words, answer each of the worldview questions according to your own personal perspective and worldview:
What is ultimate reality?
What is the nature of the universe?
What is a human being?
What is knowledge?
What is your basis of ethics?
What is the purpose of your existence?
Remember to support your reflection with the topic Resources.

Briefly state specifically how this source provides evidence that strongly supports your conclusion.How current is this the source you are using?

The authors, researchers at the Rand Corporation and Brown University, use data from the National Longitudinal Surveys of Young Women and Young Men to test their hypothesis that nonfamily living by young adults alters their attitudes, values, plans, and expectations, moving them away from their belief in traditional sex roles.

a. How current is this the source you are using?

Example 2a
2a. While this source is not current, it has formed the basis for numerous follow-up studies and it frequently cited in the literature; it has both historical value and also serves as a base-point for tracking changing attitudes.

b. How authoritative, credible, reliable?

2b. This is a scholarly source; the source is credible, reliable and authoritative. The authors were experts in their fields, published their study in a peer-reviewed journal, and the study has held up under rigorous scrutiny by other experts in the field.

c. Briefly state specifically how this source provides evidence that strongly supports your conclusion. For example, “the article discusses significant evidence that this diet provides all essential nutrients and supports my view that the diet is healthy” “this study shows that this diet is deficient in vitamin D and supports my point that this diet is not healthy” “this survey revealed that obesity is on a rapid rise among all demographic groups and supports my view that obesity is epidemic”

How does evolution take place according to Sankhya philosophy ? Is evolution really possible if Purusa and Prakrti are separate ? give reasons in support of your answer.

The Sankhya Philosophy

How does evolution take place according to Sankhya philosophy ? Is evolution really possible if Purusa and Prakrti are separate ? give reasons in support of your answer

Students will be expected to undertake an in depth, critical analysis of the major philosophical themes with a special emphasis on how the work responds to the most fundamental philosophical questions.

Describe what he means by these terms. Do you have any objections to his theory?

Nietzsche’s fundamental insight or assertion seems to be that in order to understand morality we must look at history and human culture. For him morality is not natural in the sense of already being there but is created by humans and evolves. His example is the evolution of what he calls master and slave morality. Describe what he means by these terms. Do you have any objections to his theory?

What kind of Reasoning is used/presented by your topic?Does your topic rely on the use of any Rhetoric? And if so, how does this affect/alter its Argument about its Claim?

Your Final Paper will be exploring, critically analyzing, and conveying a topic of your
choosing. It could be a song, a clip/scene from a film, a painting, an advertisement , a
children’s book, a story, a passage from a book, gay conversion therapy, any movement , the millennial generation, a superhero, this class, etc. Whatever you choose, bear in mind that it can’t be so complex that you aren’t able to encapsulate it into 3-5 page analysis and presentation.
Basically, don’t choose something so complex , that it would take more than 3-5 pages to fully discuss and present. SRSLY THO. THIS IS NOT A TERM PAPER, OR DEGREE PAPER.
Using and applying what you’ve learned throughout the semester, demonstrate the goal presented in the first chapter of the book: “Critical making wise decisions and coming to CORRECT CONCLUSIONS.”
Your overall goal is to demonstrate that you’ve reached THE CORRECT CONCLUSION about your topic, by providing a COMPLETE analysis which conveys the following:
– Is your topic making a Claim(s) of any kind, and if so, what is it/are they?
– What kind of Reasoning is used/presented by your topic?
– Does your topic rely on the use of any Rhetoric? And if so, how does this affect/alter its Argument about its Claim?
– Is Persuasion the goal/intention of your topic? If so, for what?
– Is anything left Ambiguous or Vague?
– What is the Credibility to the Claim(s) made by your topic? What is the Credibility of any Source
within your topic?
– Are there any Fallacies contained within your topic? If so, what are they?
Do they completely undermine the Claim(s) your topic makes?
– Does your topic assert any Value Judgments? What about and what are they?
– If your topic DOES make any Value Judgments, What Theory/Perspectives are they operating out of? Moral? Aesthetic? Why is it important for your topic to make these? What do they add to your topic?

Can we claim to know something if we meet Ayer’s criteria? Do we need to meet all of them in order to have knowledge? Even if we have a justified true belief, are there any criteria missing, as Gettier seems to have thought?

You are expected to refer to relevant parts of our course materials and to cite references appropriately, even if your only source is, for example, one article. No other secondary literature should be needed to craft an “A” paper. In fact, using other sources usually detracts from the quality of an essay like this one.

1. Knowledge & Knowing
In the Mediations, Descartes was concerned to find knowledge that was true, certain, and well-justified. Three centuries later, A. J. Ayer wrote that to know something is have a justified true belief about it. Gettier objected to Ayer’s characterization of knowledge by offering a counterexample.
In your view, are the criteria of justification, truth, and conviction necessary and sufficient conditions for having knowledge? In other words, can we claim to know something if we meet Ayer’s criteria? Do we need to meet all of them in order to have knowledge? Even if we have a justified true belief, are there any criteria missing, as Gettier seems to have thought?
Answer this question succinctly as possible. Your answer should (1) explain what Ayer means by justification, truth, and conviction (belief), (2) the details and reasons for Gettier’s objection, and (3) your assessment of the debate. Be sure to offer reasons for and against your view, providing your own examples as needed to clarify your meaning.

Explain Cora Diamond’s idea of the “imaginative sense of humanity,” and why she thinks it establishes a distinctive moral worth for all human beings.

Philosophy reflection paper 

Choose only one prompt to write on. Reflection papers should be between 1.5-2 pages . The first half should explain the theories, arguments, and/or concepts mentioned in the prompt; the second half should be your own reflection on the questions posed after “then consider”.

Prompt 1:

Explain Cora Diamond’s idea of the “imaginative sense of humanity,” and why she thinks it establishes a distinctive moral worth for all human beings. Then consider: Do you agree that the imaginative sense of humanity gives us a special moral worth? Why or why not? If you do agree, do you think this is a strong enough basis for human moral equality?

Prompt 2:

Explain Jeremy Waldron’s claim that moral worth and dignity should be applied to whole lives, not just time slices of lives, and why he thinks this helps support human moral equality. Then consider: Do you agree with Waldron that moral worth and dignity should be applied to whole lives, not just time slices? Why or why not? If you do agree, do you also agree that this supports human moral equality?