Explain what the meaning of a name is. Justify your view as fully as you can.

You should take it as a presumption of the essay that names are expressions in language whose role is to pick out a unique individual. You can chose to focus on and, perhaps, argue for the Millian view, the Fregean view or the Russellian view; but ideally, whichever you choose to focus on, you should use the other views to compare, contrast and examine.
⎯ Give brief, pointed and accurate expositions of relevant philosophical views.
⎯ Do not simply describe the view but explain the reasons for it, either reasons the
philosopher gives or reasons you  supply. Make sure you distinguish these.
Here are some issues you may focus on:
• You must explain how the view accounts for the fact that an object can be denoted in more than one way.
• Are there informative identity statements involving only pairs of names?
• If so, how do we explain this?
• If not, how do we explain the appearance that there are?
• Are there names which fail to denote anything?
• If so, how is this explained?
• If not, how do we explain the appearance that there are?

Explain one specific idea from one of the academic course texts. Explain whether you think that idea supports, contradicts, or changes what you think about the original argument.

In Draft 1 you explained someone else’s argument. Now take that Draft and revise it so that it is about what you think about that argument or a specific claim/idea from the argument.

Your new revised draft should:

Revise Draft 1, making it easier to read, more accurate, more specific, etc.
Consider instructor feedback on Draft 1 to identify places that could be improved and decide how to do so. You don’t have to do exactly as the feedback suggests, you may decide that doing something else will better fit your new draft.

Explain one specific idea from one of the academic course texts. Explain whether you think that idea supports, contradicts, or changes what you think about the original argument.

Evaluate the worldview in terms of implications for your professional area, noting the difference to your personal worldview if there is a difference.

Critique on Theism

Written Critique:
o Written Critique 1: A critique of Theism, OR Pantheism, OR Naturalism
o Written Critique # 2: A critique of Nihilism, OR Existentialism, OR New Age, OR Post-Modernism

Suggestions for written report/critique:

(1) Introduce the topic by stating 2 or 3 of the major basic assumptions of the worldview under discussion  – 200 words.

(2) In the next 250-400 words, from an analytical/logical perspective explore the strengths and weaknesses of the basic assumptions .

This section of the critique should not be based on your feelings but on a genuine and reasonably defensible analysis of the issues.

(3) The last 150 words should evaluate the worldview in terms of implications for your professional area, noting the difference to your personal worldview if there is a difference.

(4) Use APA or Turabian style and AU format in presenting your report and making reference to any resources to which you refer. (5) As noted in the assessment criteria, remember that creativity, careful presentation, and well-reasoned argument are the basis of a good grade.

Do you agree that every event has an explanatory cause? How do you define human choice? How do you define human event? Are they different? Do you agree that to have an explanatory cause is to not be free?

For this Discussion Board, you will write a dialogue between yourself and an imaginary Socrates. You will debate the question of free will versus determinism. Remember that the Socratic Method involves asking a series of questions to clarify key words and ideas. In your dialogue, the imaginary Socrates should be asking clarifying questions, and you will be answering them. Please refer to the excerpt from Plato’s Meno as an example to model your dialogue. This post should be 200 words.
Your post should be a dialogue, which may address the following questions, using the Socratic Method:

Do you agree that every event has an explanatory cause?
How do you define human choice? How do you define human event? Are they different?
Do you agree that to have an explanatory cause is to not be free?
How do you define free?
Do you think that free will and determinism Socratic Methodcan coexist in any way?
Is it possible to have external determinism and internal free will?
To have cohesion and reach solid conclusions, your imaginary Socrates may ask you more questions than the ones listed above. Be sure to include all of the above ideas in your dialogue.

Does this paper contain only relevant information? Are the citations completed properly?Is/are the philosopher’s view presented with the appropriate level of detail?  Does the author present a clear argument in his/her discussion?

Visit the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy found here . Pick one of the arguments from section 3 and present it. Then, determine what James Rachels and Ray Prebble might say about it. Which argument do you think better lives up to the standards of philosophy?

1. Does this paper identify have a clear thesis?
2. Does this paper contain only relevant information? Are the citations completed properly?

3. Does the paper attribute the correct view to the philosophers in question?

4. Is/are the philosopher’s view presented with the appropriate level of detail?
Does the author present a clear argument in his/her discussion?

6. Does the paper cohere? Or, is the paper a hodgepodge of disparate ideas? . Does the conclusion tie together the different phases of the paper? Or, is the conclusion a non-sequitur?

8. Are the spelling, grammar and syntax on the college level?. Does the author make appropriate and accurate use of course concepts in constructing his or her discussion?

Which TWO classmates’ posts struck you as the clearest, most coherent, and accurate presentation of either Rawls or Nozick?

You are going to present a concept from either Rawls or Nozick. Your initial post and peer reply should each consist of approximately 150-200 words. Be sure to Choose one of the following prompts to address in your original post: Suppose someone asks you, “What is the veil of ignorance?” Explain Rawls’s thought experiment. Suppose someone asks you, “What is justice in acquisition?” Explain Nozick’s concept.

You are going to present a concept from either Rawls or Nozick. Your initial post and peer reply should each consist of approximately 150-200 words.

Choose one of the following prompts to address in your original post:

Suppose someone asks you, “What is the veil of ignorance?” Explain Rawls’s thought experiment.
Suppose someone asks you, “What is justice in acquisition?” Explain Nozick’s concept.
Be sure to complete your original post by Friday, and your peer reply by Sunday.

Which TWO classmates’ posts struck you as the clearest, most coherent, and accurate presentation of either Rawls or Nozick?

Explain how you understand the theory or argument in your own words .

In philosophy, structure is especially important because it is an aide to clarity and thoroughness in writing, which is highly valued in the discipline as the result of the analytic turn. Be sure to use MLA 10 for formatting .
Include these sections:
This section serves to acquaint your reader with the topic at hand. What this often looks like is writing about the idea more generally before writing about it more specifically. However it is important to only include what your reader needs to know for context
of your topic. For this reason, this section may only include the thesis paragraph. This
paragraph is what sets the readers expectations by stating explicitly what the paper will cover and how . Explain how you will explain the theory.
2. Body: This is where you carry out the plan you have laid out in the paragraph.
a. Explain how you understand the theory or argument in your own words .
b. Include your examples from your own experience or creative mind in order to illustrate
ideas presented in the text.

Explain whether or not you agree with the argument you have chosen. Again, be sure to give reasons to support your view.

In your Argument Analysis, you will do two things: first, you will explain an argument from one of the assigned readings, and next, you will evaluate that argument. For each due date.
Your aim in this assignment is, first, to explain the chosen argument clearly and accurately, and second, to give a clear and credible reason as to why you think the argument succeeds or fails. To do this, your Argument Analysis should follow a very specific outline, given below:
1. Opening paragraph a. In a sentence or two, state the argument you are analyzing. Be sure to state the text the argument comes from. b. In a sentence, state your article. Be sure to use the first-personal voice.
2. Second paragraph a. Explain the argument you are analyzing in detail. Be sure to explain the reasons the author gives in support of their conclusion. Also, be sure to give a citation every time you quote, summarize, or paraphrase the text.
3. Third paragraph a. Explain whether or not you agree with the argument you have chosen. Again, be sure to give reasons to support your view.
4. Concluding paragraph. a. In a sentence or two, state what you have argued. Be sure it’s the same thing you said you would argue in your opening paragraph!