Compare and contrast Kierkegaard’s three stages of authenticity with Nietzsche’s three transformations of the soul.

1. From a Utilitarian perspective, judge the moral value of the actors of this situation:
https://la.utexas.edu/users/jmciver/357L/QueenvDS.PDF (Links to an external site.)

2. Watch the following video, how is this relevant to existentialism? Give specific reasons from class discussions.  How would you feel if this spirit appeared to you? Why would you feel this way?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EknD3KRtgDk (Links to an external site.)

3. How is postmodernism different from modernism?

4. How is the video exemplary of pragmatism?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfD3X3f5C_w (Links to an external site.)

5. Compare and contrast Kierkegaard’s three stages of authenticity with Nietzsche’s three transformations of the soul. Do you agree with these portrayals? Why or why not?

6. Provide an interpretation of these two images in relationship to James’s and Wittgenstein’s philosophy of language.

IMAGE ONE: https://search.brave.com/images?q=squirrel#2 (Links to an external site.)

IMAGE TWO: https://search.brave.com/images?q=duck%20rabbit#2 (Links to an external site.)

7. How do you think philosophy will change your life, if at all? Explain in detail.

8. Define feminism.

How does Buddha’s theory of the self differ from the one advanced by Plato?

Coursework

Answer the following questions in a clear and organized paragraph. Each paragraph should include a clear and precise thesis (1-2 sentences) that directly addresses the question prompt, at least 1 direct quote from the materials of the course, and at least 5-7 sentences or more than analyze the direct quotes and explain how the evidence supports

1. Nietzsche is often cited as having proclaimed the death of God. What would you say Nietzsche meant by this?

WORK CITED: https://iep.utm.edu/nietzsch/

2. How does Buddha’s theory of the self differ from the one advanced by Plato?

WORK CITED: Title: Buddha (c.500s B.C.E), the University of Tennessee at Martin’s Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy; Author: Dr. Abraham Velez; Source:http://www.iep.utm.edu/buddha/

Is Critical Thinking Epistemically Responsible?

Is Critical Thinking Epistemically Responsible?

Main Question: Is Michael Huemer’s argument for his main successful?

Huemer argues that we should never rely on what he terms “critical thinking”when it comes to forming beliefs about “publicly discussed issues.” Instead, we should either suspend judgment on the issue or just follow the lead of the experts and believe whatever it is that they believe. Explain and evaluate Huemer’s argument

In the explanation portion of your paper, you should: (i) explain what Huemer means by “critical thinking;” (ii) utilize some example of a “publicly discussed issue” in explaining his position, and (iii) fully explain Huemer’s main argument,trying to make it seem as plausible as you can.

In the evaluation portion of the paper, you should: (i) develop an objection to Huemer’s argument (be sure to state explicitly what aspect of his argument the objection targets); (ii) evaluate your objection to
Huemer’s argument (does it succeed? If so, consider what Huemer might say in response. If not, fully explain why not); and (iii) restate your overall position on Huemer’s argument.

How should Canada have prioritized its own vaccine needs against those of other countries?Is its current proposal to distribute 200 vaccine doses sufficient and timely,too little too late, or a failure to protect the interests of Canadians?

Health Ethics

Write a paper nine pages in length, double spaced, with a twelve point, times new roman font, and one inch margins. In the paper, consider ONE of the following cases:

Canada recently pledged a total of 200 million COVID-19 vaccine doses to a program distributing them to low and middle income countries. At the same time, Canada has been criticized for not following through or acting fast enough on its promises to distribute vaccines abroad.

How should Canada have prioritized its own vaccine needs against those of other countries?Is its current proposal to distribute 200 vaccine doses sufficient and timely,too little too late, or a failure to protect the interests of Canadians? What values are related to distributive justice are relevant to answering this question?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-promises-covid-vaccine-doses-1.6231465 (Links to an external site.)

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-thursday-edition-1.6219522/rich-countries-only-shared-14-of-covid-19-vaccine-doses-promised-to-poorer-nations-report-1.6219969

Your paper should have the following structure:

First, give a very short (two or three sentence) introductory paragraph that includes a clear thesis statement. Be specific. Example: In this paper,will argue that Kass’ public health ethics framework demonstrates that there should be no criminal penalties for the personal use of currently illicit drugs.

Second, give any facts relevant to the case, proposed policy, and to your argument. For example, you may wish to discuss issues around the safety of the illicit drug supply in BC. You may use the readings from class, journals, newspapers, and online resources for this task. You must include at least five high quality outside resources for this part of the paper.

Third, provide an argument for your thesis. Be clear as to your assumptions and claims and how they are defended. You should draw on the ethical frameworks/principles discussed in class for this task, modify one of these frameworks/principlist approaches, or suggest your own framework/principles. In defense of your thesis, clearly state the ethical values, concepts, frameworks, and/or principles that you are using, as well as the arguments supporting their use. Be clear as to why you are using these frameworks/principles, and why you believe this approach to be the best to use in this context.

Fourth, offer one or two critiques of your view. Put yourself in the position of a critic and offer the strongest critical response(s) to your view available. This portion of the paper allows you to make sure that you are developing the strongest argument possible by rebutting the best objection(s) your opponent can offer to your view.

Fifth, offer a response to your opponent. If you do not believe an effective response is available, grant the point and amend your thesis accordingly.

Sixth, in a single paragraph offer a very brief conclusion to your argument.

In what ways can cinema be said to present new ways of representing thought that offer an alternative to a linguistic paradigm?

In what ways can cinema be said to present new ways of representing thought that offer an alternative to a linguistic paradigm?

Answer with reference to at least two films discussed on the module. Next films can be used: Hamlet (Lawrence Olivier, UK, 1948), Persona (Ingmar Bergman, Sweden, 1966), Meshes of the Afternoon (Maya Deren, USA, 1943), Tout la mémoire du monde (Alain Resnais/Chris Marker, France, 1956), Maya Deren, Dances for Camera (Maya Deren, USA, 1946-1955), Pickpocket (Robert Bresson, France, 1959), The Thin Red Line (Terrence Malick, USA, 1998)

Explain Pascal’s reasons for thinking that we cannot opt-out of wagering about God’s existence.

Course work

1. Briefly explain Descartes’s causal argument for the existence of God.

WORK CITED FROM THIS SOURCE:

Descartes, Rene


Title: Rene Descartes (1596-1650); Author: Dr. Justing Skirry; Source: http://www.iep.utm.edu/descarte/

2. Explain Pascal’s reasons for thinking that we cannot opt-out of wagering about God’s existence.

WORK CITED FROM THIS SOURCE:
Title: The Argument from Pascal’s Wager; Author: Dr. Peter Kreeft; Source:http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/pascals-wager.htm
Or https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/

Discuss whether you think it succeeds as an argument against preferential hiring.

From Chapter 11, Describe the merit argument. Give some issues with the merit argument, and discuss whether you think it succeeds as an argument against preferential hiring. Give philosophically adequate arguments. Give an accurate analysis of the arguments presented and to give well-constructed arguments. Lastly, give an accurate account of the theories and terms presented in the reading.