What do the terms freedom,responsibility,and suffering mean to Frankl?Does the fact that Wiesel and Frankl endured the concentration camps give their views a greater resonance for you?

How do Martin Buber,Emanual Levinas, and Elie Wiesel differ from Victor Frankl in their views of the possibility of finding meaning in response to the Holocaust?

What do the terms freedom,responsibility,and suffering mean to Frankl?Does the fact that Wiesel and Frankl endured the concentration camps give their views a greater resonance for you? Explain your answer.

To what extent does an analysis of colonialism provide a useful conceptual and historical framework for understanding genocides?

Genocide

Chosen Essay Question:

To what extent does an analysis of colonialism provide a useful conceptual and historical framework for understanding genocides?

Use one case study either from within this unit or of your own choosing to assess the value and limitations of using colonialism as a historical and conceptual framework. As you compose your paper, be sure to address the main features of those arguments about colonialism and genocide.

Note: A case study from the unit must be chosen, I would like to choose the Genocide in Australia to relate to this essay. But,would also like frequent reference to the Holocaust and some reference of Armenian Genocide because they are related to the philosophy & history behind genocide.

Note: The purpose of the essay is to “foster research analysis of historical debates concerning genocide”. This is mainly referring to debates surrounding Raphael Lemkin and the UN Convention’s conceptualization of genocide…

Note: The word limit is 2000 words, +/- 10% on the word limit.

Note: referencing must be Chicago 16th not Chicago 17th

Note: The assignment is an essay, but was assigned as a “research essay”

Note: This essay is worth 35% of my grade.

Note: “Criteria for Marking (Please see the Assignment 5 marking rubric below for more detail): 1. Be sure to state in your introductory section a clear argument/contention, rather than broad summary. Every essay must have a contention that clearly states WHAT you are going to argue (in specific terms); HOW you are going to argue it (in specific terms); and WHY it matters (i.e. the “so what?” question). Each subsequent paragraph should have a topic sentence, supporting evidence, and analysis that serves to advance that contention. When writing a conclusion, be sure to avoid summarizing what you have already written. Rather, synthesize (which is vitally distinct from summarizing) your main arguments. One way to do this is to address the implications of your research; comment on what you were not able to more fully examine due to the limited scope of the assignment; and related to that, what lines of inquiry would be worth pursuing by others”

Note: “Source Requirements: A minimum of seven (7) academic articles or academic book chapters (i.e., secondary sources). You are not allowed to use more than two (2) chapters from a particular sole-authored monograph or from a particular edited volume nor are you allowed to use more than two works created by a particular author. The aim is to find a diverse source base.

Note that you are not allowed to use any readings and sources assigned for the unit to count towards your secondary source minimum requirement. You can cite some readings from class as long as they are very limited in use and not your central focus and they will not count towards your minimum source requirement.

However, you may use an author that has been assigned for the unit to count towards your minimum as long as it is not the same content/text assigned. While primary sources are not required and you should be focusing on secondary sources, you may bring in one or two primary sources if you think it’s relevant, but they will not count towards your minimum.”

What are some other possible implications and conclusions you can make regarding knowledge based on your views on this problem of external minds?

2nd Formal Essay

Questions (select only one of the following 2 options):

1.Can we trust knowledge involving causality? If we can, what do you believe to be the best response to the Problem of Induction? If you believe we can not, why are you confident that the Problem of Induction can not be adequately solved? What are some other possible implications and conclusions you can make regarding knowledge based on your views on the Problem of Induction?

In developing your response, you’ll need to include some analysis and explanation of both the Hume and Goodman readings from Chapter 4.

2.Can we ever have any knowledge of other minds? If we can, how can you best explain how we might have such knowledge, and how might this knowledge be limited? If we can not, why do you believe this to be the case? What are some other possible implications and conclusions you can make regarding knowledge based on your views on this problem of external minds?

In developing your response, you’ll need to include some analysis and explanation of at least 2 of the Russell, Kripke, Ponty, or Armstrong readings from Chapter 5.

In developing your responses, you will need to summarize and explain the problem you are analyzing as best you can, clearly state your specific thesis and belief in response to this problem, and respond to reasons for disagreement in defense of your thesis/belief.

You do not need to include any sources outside of our readings and notes, though you may if you’d like, as long as your sources are properly cited. If using outside sources, please make sure to not over-rely on them, as these sources should only be supplementary to your own understanding and argument. If you find yourself having trouble reaching the minimum required 3 pages, I recommend including additional opposing views, some outside research on these questions, or other essays in the chapter that you have not included, but the central focus of the essay should remain the development and explanation of your own views.

What is the best way for Locke to address this tension between the importance and the rarity of explicit consent?

Consent

Locke on explicit and tacit consent. In section 122 of Locke’s Second Treatise, Locke seems to say that a person can only be a member of a political society if that person explicitly consents to be governed by its laws. But Locke also seems sensitive to the fact that very few people actually give explicit consent to be governed; that is one possible reason for his extensive discussions of tacit consent.

What is the best way for Locke to address this tension between the importance and the rarity of explicit consent? (Should he conclude, for instance, that there are almost no actual members of political societies? Or is there a way for him to avoid that conclusion?)

What is the best way for Locke to address this tension between the importance and the rarity of explicit consent?

Explicit and Tacit Consent

Locke on explicit and tacit consent. In section 122 of Locke’s Second Treatise, Locke seems to say that a person can only be a member of a political society if that person explicitly consents to be governed by its laws. But Locke also seems sensitive to the fact that very few people actually give explicit consent to be governed; that is one possible reason for his extensive discussions of tacit consent.

What is the best way for Locke to address this tension between the importance and the rarity of explicit consent? (Should he conclude, for instance, that there are almost no actual members of political societies? Or is there a way for him to avoid that conclusion?)