Write a short essay explaining the philosopher’s understanding of the concept, argument,

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 sources to consider:
1. Fieser & Stumpf. Philosophy: A Historical Survey with Readings. Oxford, 2010.
2. Plato. Five Dialogues: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Meno, Phaedo. Trans by Grube. Hackett, 2002.
3. Sartre. Existentialism is a Humanism. Yale University Press, 2007.
4. Fromm & Marx. Marx’s Concept of Man, with Marx’s Economic & Philosophic Manuscripts.
Bloomsbury, 2013.
note:
PLEASE DISCUSS WITH ME WHICH PHILOSOPHER/THEORY YOU ARE MORE FAMILIAR WITH TO WRITE ABOUT. I PREFER SOCRATES, PLATO, ARISTOTLE, BUT FEEL FREE IF YOU HAVE SOMEONE ELSE IN MIND.

What evidence is presented in the film against this view?

Watch: The Baraka Link: https://www.documentarytube.com/videos/baraka
Read: David Abram’s philosophy [in Greening Philosophy]
The filmmaker is making an argument even though there is no narrator, no script, and no words at all. The argument is made by appealing to your subjective sensory and emotional experience through the use of images and music.
TAKE NOTES: Use the following outline to take notes as you watch the film:
Before industrial civilization:Good things
Bad things
Industrial Civilization todayGood things
Bad things
Use the following paragraph outline for your paper: (600-800 words)
State your thesis: “In this paper I will [support OR challenge] the filmmaker’s position on the truth of industrial civilization.”
What is the filmmaker’s truth claim about industrial civilization? What evidence is presented for this claim in the film? Use several examples from the film to convey the position.
Consider the filmmaker’s opposition (the dominant view) that views today’s industrial civilization as entirely positive. What evidence is presented in the film against this view?
Using your critical thinking skills to make the case for your thesis:
If you are challenging the filmmaker’s truth claim, then point out what is missing from the film, what is exaggerated, what is “biased” or “ideological.”
If you are supporting the filmmaker’s truth claim, then use your own experiences to reinforce the examples and evidence they give.
Use a quote from David Abram’s essay (required reading) to support your view or to present your opposition’s view.
Conclude with your view on whether this “inter-subjective” path is the best way to know the truth about reality.

Identify one of the counter-arguments paley addresses in chapter 26 to his proof of divine goodness.

Before you begin, be sure to read the selections from Paley’s Natural Theology. Also read Darwin’s On the Origin of Species.
Explain Paley’s proof of divine goodness (Chapter 26). Identify ONE of the counter-arguments Paley addresses in Chapter 26 to his proof of divine goodness. Explain how he responds this counter-argument.
Address the question (and include a minimum of one quotation as evidence): did Darwin also believe in divine goodness?
For full credit, your response should be a minimum of 6 sentences.
The readings are attached to files in a shortened version to help with the amount of reading to get down to the details from reading needed. A perfect assignment will thoughtfully respond to all parts of the prompt. It will make appropriate references to the assigned texts. The writing should be proofread, and will have few typos or other errors.

Luban vs. dare on ethics in legal practice

Luban vs. Dare on ethics in legal practice
By “analyze,” I mean explain how and why these authors disagree with each other (and also the
extent to which they agree). By “evaluate,” I mean take a side in the debate, defending the views
of one author against the challenges from their opponent (or, perhaps, proposing a third option or
middle ground).
This paper should be around 6 pages (double-spaced, 12 pt., Times New Roman).