How is collaboration important within communities?What contributes to a successfully organized community?In what way does an individual contribute to democracy?

Mary Parker Follett and Her Outlook on Democracy:

Mary Parker Follett played a crucial role in the development of thought and practice in the field of adult and informal education throughout the twentieth century. Her work on conceptions of community, experience, the group, and how they interacted with the individual was a crucial component in the development of conceptualization and practice of groupwork, as well as in the creation and organization of communities.

In this paper will focus on her idea that to successfully participate in a democracy you must cooperatively engage and participate in democracy, and not give the responsibility to someone else. This logical idea is seemingly effective, which raises many questions. How is collaboration important within communities?What contributes to a successfully organized community?In what way does an individual contribute to democracy?

Follett presents a key idea on democracy in the new state, that is, that the individual is the state, and the state is the individual. If one builds their own life with their own experiences, the outcome is a connected democracy. A functioning democracy consists of a community built by finding common motives, integration, a concept of power with, and group process.

What is Dworkin’s view about when the state is warranted in creating paternalistic laws, and how does he defend it?

Rawls – Civil Disobedience

Your short essay should be 1800 words (plus or minus 10%), double–spaced, use standard font and margins, and have no cover page. It is due Friday, December 3 at 11:59pm and is worth 30% of your grade. There is no single conventional form of citation in philosophy,but you should use an accepted citation style (e.g. Chicago, MLA, APA) to cite authors whom you directly quote or whose ideas you paraphrase. Your essay should also include a bibliography or references section on the final page. Please submit your essay as a .doc or PDF file via the course webpage. In your essay, you will respond to one of the following topics:

1. Practitioners of civil disobedience demonstrate fidelity to law, but political rioters do not. Draw on Rawls’s theory of civil disobedience to explain why it can be important for those who break the law as a form of protest to express respect for the authority of the state, and say how, according to Rawls, protesters should go about expressing this respect. In your opinion, should those who break the law as a form of protest always attempt to demonstrate fidelity to law? If so, why? If not, why not?

2. John Stuart Mill argues that the state is never warranted in interfering with a person’s liberty in order to prevent harm to that person. In his essay ‘Paternalism,’ Gerald Dworkin disagrees with this claim. What is Dworkin’s view about when the state is warranted in creating paternalistic laws, and how does he defend it? Raise at least one objection to Dworkin’s view. Is the objection successful? Why or why not?

Explain how two of these theorists represent a break from past ways of thinking about morality.

On the final exam for this course, you will be asked to answer the following question in clearly written paragraphs.

You do not have to follow a formal essay-writing format in answering this question – no introduction,or conclusion is required. Just imagine that you are diving into the body of an essay in which you are asked to summarize and evaluate philosophical arguments.

The Question

In the last three weeks of the course, we examined moral philosophy through the lens of existentialism and feminist theory in the writings of Sartre,Beauvoir and Baier. Their perspectives put moral theory on a new footing in comparison to how it has been approached in the past.

Explain how TWO of these theorists represent a break from past ways of thinking about morality.

Of the theorists you discuss, which do you think provides the most promising new direction for moral philosophy? Or is it a promising direction at all?

Defend your answer.

Note that this question will make up the totality of your exam. You should devote ¾ of your answer to summary and ¼ to evaluation of philosophical arguments.

Answer Guidelines

• As with your essays, the goal is to demonstrate what you know about our course readings and discussions of them in as much depth as possible and in your own words. The learning materials I have posted are meant to guide you through these readings; they are not a substitute for them. And keep
especially in mind that I am interested in what you learned from our class,not what you learned from the internet, so do not use secondary source summaries of our course material as though they were our primary source readings – this is not a learning objective of the course.

• You do not have to provide detailed summaries of philosophical theories studied earlier in the course when referring to “past ways of thinking about morality”; you can refer in a more general way to how those thinkers approached moral questions to demonstrate what is new and different about
the two philosophers who are the focus of your answer.

• In presenting your argument summary and evaluation, follow the same standards outlined on the “essay writing checklist” that was included with your essay assignments

Critically evaluate Haslanger’s project of revising the concept of race, and/or her argument that race is something that is socially constructed (yet real).

Concept of Race

Prompt: Critically evaluate Haslanger’s project of revising the concept of race, and/or her argument that race is something that is socially constructed (yet real).

Base off of flow of ideas reading and make an argument as to whether this account of race falls under traditional ways of thinking about race (constructionists, eliminativists, etc.) or is it entirely new

What kinds of causal relationships are at issue?What kinds of data are used?Are the models idealized?

This is for my Philosophy, Politics, and Economics (PPE) Capstone course: Reasoning with Models

The topic I’ve chosen is voting systems (I.e. First-past-the-post voting, ranked-choice voting, single transferable vote, etc.). It needs to make considerable reference to models and should have 7-15 sources.

Attached, in order,have put the assignment description, my professor’s writing advice and pet peeves, an example of an argument analysis I wrote that I got a 92% on, and two readings from our class that my professor said would be helpful given my topic.

Below is a breakdown of the assignment I’ve copied from the assignment description document:

1. Within your “home discipline,” find a scholarly controversy or debate about some issue. It could be from a previous class you’ve taken, or just something you’re just interested in.

2. Find at least two (2) papers within that debate. Obviously, these papers should represent at least two positions within the debate. They should disagree with one another. Remember, what’s important is that you lay out two positions, and not necessarily just write about two papers.

3. Articulate, in detail, the research question at issue. What are they disagreeing about? Why is it interesting?

4. Lay out, briefly, each position you’ll be considering.

5. What strategies are used to answer the research question you’re considering? In detail: How do they understand the issue? What kind of models do they use? What kinds of causal relationships are at issue? What kinds of data are used? Are the models idealized? How? Do different sides of the controversy take different strategies? Why?

What conception of freedom do you find the most persuasive?What does this conception of freedom entail us to do,and in your judgment,why is this a better theory than the alternatives?

Leave empty

This is a critical essay here is the prompt– Of Kant, Hegel, and Marx, what conception of freedom do you find the most persuasive?What does this conception of freedom entail us to do,and in your judgment,why is this a better theory than the alternatives?

The prompt is at the very bottom of the slides.

Explain the key aspects of the topic by referring to the philosopher’s primary text,and by quoting directly from this and the secondary material.

Concept from Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Descartes, Kant, or Arendt

Philosophy Essay Guidelines

Format:

1. 5-8 pages; Double Spaced; 12-point font.

2. Must be formatted in Chicago Manual of Style (CMOS/CMS).

3. Cover page including title, course name and section, student name, semester (does not count toward overall pages).

4. Bibliography or works cited as separate page (does not count toward overall pages).

5. Three scholarly sources must be used including:

1. At least one primary text from the philosopher under discussion.

2. At least two secondary, scholarly books.

3. Journal articles may not be used as secondary sources—only scholarly books.

4. Online books may be used only if they are PDFs and only if they include original page numbers.

5. Secondary sources must be written by a scholar affiliated with a university or College.

6. Photocopies of pages of all referenced quotations must be included with your final essay, stapled together separately. (Only the page containing the specific quotation is required.)

7. Websites may not be used except for the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP)–(both are peer-reviewed). These websites do not count toward your three scholarly sources.

7. If websites other that the above mentioned are used (i.e. Wikipedia, etc.) the essay will receive a failing grade.

8. Page numbers must be included.

9. Quotations must be referenced with footnotes. No in-text reference citations are permitted. No endnote reference citations permitted.

10. Essays must be submitted in hard copy format.

Content:

1. Pick one philosopher we have discussed this semester (i.e. Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Descartes, Kant, Arendt) and one concept, argument, or theory related to the philosopher you have chosen.

2. Write a short essay explaining the philosopher’s understanding of the concept, argument, or theory as if you were writing a short encyclopedia article.

3. This is not an argumentative essay, it is explanatory, demonstrating knowledge of the topic and of primary and secondary sources.

4. There should be at least two short quotations (no more than two sentences) per page.

There should be at least three direct quotations from the primary text in the overall essay.

These primary quotations should relate directly to the topic at hand.

Additional Information:

1. Essays should be written in the third person.

2. No personal opinion should be given about the topic under discussion.

3. Explain the key aspects of the topic by referring to the philosopher’s primary text,and by quoting directly from this and the secondary material.

4. If you decide to include counter arguments, use other well-known philosophers’
counter arguments, not your own counterarguments. For example, Bertrand Russell has numerous interesting counterarguments directed at many philosophers in his History of Western Philosophy. Counter Arguments should not take up more than one page of the overall essay.

Side note: Let me know as soon as possible what the topic and sources are so can let the professor know.

What does lucid dreaming teach us about dreams more generally?

Lucid Dreams: What does lucid dreaming teach us about dreams more generally?

Write a long argumentative essay in which you defend an answer to a question of your choice. Your question can address any topic from this course, and your discussion should engage with two outside sources. Include in-text citations and a works cited page.

Your paper should discuss one or two of the most relevant readings from class. A strong defense will not only present evidence for your chosen view. It will also consider the biggest challenges to the view, and provide a compelling response to those challenges.

Challenges may be found in the readings, or you can raise an original objection of your own. The best papers will do more than just summarize the debate. They will also contribute to the debate by raising a new objection, giving a new example, or drawing a new connection between the readings.

The sources attached are from in-class and must be used. You must also find two additional outside sources to use.

What is the ultimate “no-self”, according to Bernadette Roberts?How is it different from mere ego-death?

Philosophy of Religion

Instructions:

• Each question should be 150 words

• Use the video lectures provided in this link:

• No outside sources are needed or encouraged

• Each answer should show a thorough understanding of the course material and should not sound “copy-paste”

Pick 5 out of the 6 questions:

1. “Eternity is a chamber built for one.” What does Kierkegaard mean? How is justice served, in his Eternity?

2. John Caputo writes: “In the Kingdom there is an odd predilection for reversals”. Explain.

3. How is omniscience reducible to omnipotence? How is omnipresence, then, reducible to omnipotence?

4. Consider Fallacious Solution #2, that ‘evil is causally necessary for good’. Give an example of a causally-related evil & good. Why, according to Mackie, is this solution fallacious?

5. Religion gives us explanations of life’s mysteries. Why, according to Pascal Boyer, is this an inadequate explanation of religion? How can we criticize Boyer?

6. What is the ultimate “no-self”, according to Bernadette Roberts?How is it different from mere ego-death?