Categories
Philosophy

It should be made up of two written texts using interpretive approach – Hermeneu

It should be made up of two written texts using interpretive approach – Hermeneutic Interpretivism and Frankfurt School’s Critical Theory for assignment 1 and for assignment 2 feminist approach and Post-structuralism.
The problem area:
There has been a significant improvement in the public’s attitude towards gays and lesbians since the 1970s. The stigma surrounding transgender individuals, however, persists. A significant portion of the transgender community is adversely impacted by discriminatory discourse, especially transgender women of colour, particularly Black transgender women. What role do social injustices and forms of violence experienced by Black transgender women play in the growing number of violent deaths within this community?
Instructions of the paper:
1. The first text should outline and discuss the implications of TWO of the following approaches to the philosophy of social science for the study of a specific project or academically relevant problem/issue of your choice: a) positivism and critical rationalism; b) interpretative approaches; c) critical theory. 2. With reference to the SAME project or academically-relevant problem/issue of your choice, the second text should outline and discuss the implications of TWO of the following approaches: a) critical realism; b) feminism; c) social constructivism; d) poststructuralism. Each text should be between 6,000 and 9,000 characters, including spaces, so long as the total combined length submitted does not exceed 16,800 characters. That overall limit includes the cover, table of contents, bibliography, figures and other illustrations but excludes any appendices. Your first text should include a very brief and clear outline of your chosen project or problem/issue. But your focus in both texts should be on the implications of these approaches for its study, including the kinds of knowledge, methods and perspectives on your issue that each approach gives rise to.
You should also compare and evaluate the approaches you are considering in each case, including how they might challenge or supplement each other, and how they might inform your study in different ways. To do well in the assignment, it is important to demonstrate you are able to work with the approaches and literatures in relation to your chosen project or problem/issue. You also need to draw on readings beyond the basics, and to show appreciation of different positions and arguments within these approaches (so, for instance, through referring to particular authors and arguments rather than only the general approach). Each of your submitted texts should reference AT LEAST three different relevant readings from the course literature. These need to be referenced correctly and maybe presented in a combined reference list at the end.
References –
Part 1
Delanty, Gerard 2005, Hermeneutics and interpretation. In his Social Science: Philosophical and Methodological Foundations. Berkshire, Open University Press, pp. 41-62. (see pdf below)
Gadamer, Hans-Georg, “The universality of the hermeneutical problem”, available online [with an introduction; the original article starts on page 77] at file:///C:/Users/bthomas/Downloads/370057857-01-16-Gadamer-The-Universality-of-the-Hermaneutical-Problem.pdf (see also pdf below). This text is a bit difficult; try! and bring questions to class!
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/gadamer/ (helpful for overview of Gadamer’s approach)
Kellner, Douglas 2005, The Frankfurt School. In George Ritzer (ed.), The Sage Encyclopedia of Social Theory. London, Sage. https://sk-sagepub-com.ep.fjernadgang.kb.dk/reference/socialtheory/n111.xml
Alvesson, Mats and Sköldberg, Kaj 2009. Critical theory. In Reflexive Methodology: New Vistas for Qualitative Research. London, Sage, second edition, pp. 144-78. Attached below. The last sections on the methodological implications on pp. 162-77 are particularly helpful for addressing your projects, so make sure you read these (don’t get stuck on earlier parts)!
Held, David 1990, Introduction to Critical Theory: Horkheimer to Habermas. Cambridge, Polity. Available at https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/kbdk/detail.action?docID=1584068.
Part 2
Bacchi, Carol and Goodwin, Susan 2016, Poststructural Policy Analysis: A Guide to Practice. New York, Palgrave. See Part I, pp. 3-53. https://link-springer-com.ep.fjernadgang.kb.dk/book/10.1057/978-1-137-52546-8
Foucault, Michel 2003 [1966], The order of things and [1976] Power/knowledge. In G. Delanty and P. Strydom, editors, Philosophies of Social Science. Maidenhead, Open University Press, pp. 347-53.
Collins, Patricia Hill [1986], The sociological significance of black feminist thought, pp. 416-20. (The full paper is at https://www-jstor-org.ep.fjernadgang.kb.dk/stable/800672; see especially the sections on ‘The sociological significance of Black feminist thought’, ‘Two elements of sociological paradigms’ and ‘Toward synthesis’, on pp. 24-26 and 29-30).
Code, L. 2013, Feminist epistemology. In Bryon Kaldis, editor, Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Social Sciences. London, Sage, pp. 354-56. http://dx.doi.org.ep.fjernadgang.kb.dk/10.4135/9781452276052.n133

Categories
Philosophy

Why does White believe that Christianity is the most anthropocentric religion the world has ever seen?

(1) Why does White believe that Christianity is the most anthropocentric religion the world has ever
seen? Drawing upon White’s essay, discuss the ways in which she thinks Judeo-Christian
thinking, together with technological advancements, has led to overexploitation of the
environment.
Please read White’s article “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis” and answer the following question in 2-3 paragraphs. Do not use any external sources to answer question.
Your answer needs to demonstrate that you read, reflected, and examined the reading(s) for that week. For example, this question needs to have White’s paper as the focus for your response. You should find ways to make connections between the reading and the question. One way to do this is to draw out something the author says that you can then use a point of departure for what you want to say.

Categories
Philosophy

One of the traditional goals of epistemology—the branch of philosophy that conce

One of the traditional goals of epistemology—the branch of philosophy that concerns theories of knowledge—is to identify beliefs that are certain, beyond any doubt. As you will read in Unit 2, this pursuit is the major preoccupation of the famous philosopher, Descartes, who was not satisfied with Plato’s theory. Plato believed that only human reasoning could lead to genuine knowledge, beliefs that can be held with certitude. For Plato, of course, these supposedly indubitable beliefs concern the Forms—an ontological theory that many subsequent philosophers have rejected.
Accordingly, the question for you is: what, if anything, do you know with absolute certainty? On what basis can you justify this conviction? How might a skeptic challenge your belief?

Categories
Philosophy

Discussions Response please treat each Discussio

Discussions Response
please treat each Discussions Response separately
Daniel M
Nozick believed in a minimal interference of government, which is in contrast to Rawls who believed the government should exist to ensure everyone is treated equally and should take concrete steps to reach that goal. Nozick firmly believed the government does not have the right to interfere with people without the direct request from the people. This applied to taxes and property as well. Justice in Acquisition is Nozick’s belief that if someone fairly obtained their property, meaning they did not illegally steal it from someone else, and was fair in the amount they took so as to not deprive other people, then it was a fair acquisition. At this point, the government has no authority to come in and attempt to redistribute that property, as it was acquired fairly. Nozick also believed that if the property included resources such as water from a river, being used by others previously, then it is imperative the person who acquired the property ensure the others can continue to utilize the resource, or water. He does note however that it is entirely up to the new property owner who acquired the property owner as to the amount and methods of obtaining and using that resource, since they are now the owner. Put simply, this means whoever obtained a property first has rights to it, but they can’t be so unfair the strip the ability of others surrounding it to utilize natural resources on it, and they cannot take more property than is fair so as to deprive others of the chance to own any.
Chauncie H
The “veil of ignorance” is a moral reasoning device designed to promote impartial decision making by denying decision makers access to potentially biasing information. Rawls thought experiment on this was that we should imagine we sit behind a veil of ignorance that keeps us from knowing who we are and identifying with our personal circumstances. By being ignorant of our circumstances we can more objectively consider how societies operate. He also stated that decision-makers are assumed to be purely self-interested but their decisions are constrained by the absence of information that they could use to select principles favorable to their personal circumstances. Now, what I think he means by that is thinking back to slavery on people thought it was a good idea to have slaves and the view of ignorance would have given them a right to refuse slaveries, and it would only affect the slave owners, because of what they were doing to the slaves. I definitely agree with this. I think the veil of ignorance gives us a way to sort of create a way for fairness, and it’s something that we definitely need to work on even in this time, I think a lot of people see it as they don’t have to be favorite anything because it’s theirs and that’s what we have to normalize, something may be yours, but the same time it’s nothing wrong with being fair, telling someone something or even sharing a little bit of information with them.
https://www.pnas.org/action/oidcCallback?idpCode=connect&error=login_required&error_descriiption=Login+required&state=2_nk-vDIpU9kPph5oTgFHjCiMKSknNGbQmhWGL0QnxMLinks to an external site.

Categories
Philosophy

Write a 500-750 word (2-3 pages) essay in which you (a) explain a single argumen

Write a 500-750 word (2-3 pages) essay in which you (a) explain a single
argument, view, or objection and then (b) raise a single objection to that argument,
view, or objection. Roughly, the first half of the essay should be exposition, and the
second half evaluation.
The first line of your essay should begin: “In this essay I argue that…” followed
by a descriiption of your thesis statement. Please do not include an introduction or
conclusion. The point of the assignment is to develop your skills constructing the
substance of philosophical argumentative essay.
Some Tips:
• The whole point of the essay is to convince the reader of a particular claim. Make
that main claim extremely clear and explicit. This is your thesis statement. Your
thesis statement should make a philosophical, and not merely descriiptive, claim
(e.g. “Direct manipulation of brain is permissible,” and not “Levy believes that
2
direct manipulation of the brain is permissible.”). Take a clear stand on a
neuroethical issue.
• How do you choose a thesis statement? As we go through the material be on the
lookout for an argument or point that you disagree with. Then your thesis
statement would be that that argument or point is wrong.
• Your thesis statement should be of the form: “In this essay, I argue that…” Note
that the ‘that’ is crucial. The following is non-grammatical and non-sensical: “In
this essay I argue the extended mind hypothesis.” You need to argue that
something is true or false (or, alternatively: for a particular claim, or against a
particular claim, or in defense of a particular claim). For example, “In this essay I
argue that the extended mind hypothesis is false.”
• Ideally, your thesis statement should attempt to advance the dialectic. This
means that it should attempt to contribute something novel or original to a debate
that we’ve discussed in the course. For example, a thesis statement of the form “In
this essay, I argue that Levy’s view is correct” does not do this, it simply registers
agreement. So what do you do if you find that you want to write on a topic in
which you agree with the argument? In that case, try to come to the defense of the
argument against a new threat. Try to articulate what you think is the strongest
objection to the argument that you want to defend, and offer a counter response.
• If you have the space, try to add another layer of depth by anticipating and
responding to an objection to your position: “One might object to the argument of
this essay by claiming that…In response, notice that…”
• Fully explain all points. Imagine that the reader is someone with no prior
knowledge of the material. Strive to write so that such a reader can follow what
you are saying. To do this, you should be using the following phrases frequently:
“That is,…”, “In other words,…”, “For example,…”, and “To illustrate,…”. You
can test whether you’ve achieved this level of clear explanation by having a friend
or family member read your paper.
• This one should be obvious, but you should read your paper before submitting
it. If you can’t make sense of it, the TA and I surely won’t be able to. Good, clear
papers are easy to read.
Sample Structures:
Example 1. Raise an objection to the extended mind hypothesis. In that case you are simply raising an objection to an argument, so that your essay structure will be as follows:
(i) Thesis statement: “In this essay, I raise an objection to the argument for the
extended mind hypothesis”
(ii) Exposition: Explain what the extended mind hypothesis is. Explain the
argument for the extended mind hypothesis. [Note that in the exposition your goal
is to simply explain the target view or argument so that it is on the table for
discussion. Do not include any evaluation at this stage.]
(iii) Your objection. [Notice that you will not be in a position to raise your
objection until you’ve first explained the view.]
3
(iv) Space allowing, consider how your interlocutor (i.e. the person you are
debating) might respond to your point and offer a preemptive counter-response.
See these EXTREMELY good guides on philosophical writing:
• http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html (provides a good
overview)
• https://www.public.asu.edu/~dportmor/tips.pdf (by ASU philosopher Doug
Portmore; more in depth)
My favorite piece of advice from the above Pryor article is to write while imagining that
your reader is lazy, stupid, and mean: “He’s lazy in that he doesn’t want to figure out what
your convoluted sentences are supposed to mean, and he doesn’t want to figure out what
your argument is, if it’s not already obvious. He’s stupid, so you have to explain
everything you say to him in simple, bite-sized pieces. And he’s mean, so he’s not going
to read your paper charitably. (For example, if something you say admits of more than
one interpretation, he’s going to assume you meant the less plausible thing.)”
Now, of course, those reading your paper will be none of these things! But if you
write with this idea in mind, it will help you achieve a high level of clarity and precision,
which is highly valued in philosophical writing. I still try to keep these things in mind
whenever I write.
Philosophical argumentative writing is a unique form of persuasive writing in which one
attempts to convince the reader, by way of rational argumentation, of the truth of a
particular claim (i.e. the thesis statement). If you have never written a philosophical
argumentative paper before:
4
• Read the guides by Pryor and Portmore.
• Consider running your thesis statement by your TA.
• Consider sending your TA a detailed outline (by the Wednesday prior to the
Sunday due date) for feedback.
• Consider making an appointment at the SHPRS Writing Studio:
https://shprs.asu.edu/writingstudio

Categories
Philosophy

Must we change? Can we change? Will we change? The answer to these three questio

Must we change?
Can we change?
Will we change?
The answer to these three questions can be a personal opinion and not necessarily from any readings or research. We will revisit these questions toward the end of our time together.

Categories
Philosophy

Must we change? Can we change? Will we change? The answer to these three questio

Must we change?
Can we change?
Will we change?
The answer to these three questions can be a personal opinion and not necessarily from any readings or research. We will revisit these questions toward the end of our time together.

Categories
Philosophy

Identify the rhetorical devices, ethos, and pathos in the template.

Your assignment for this unit involves two parts. In the first part, you will be identifying rhetorical devices used to persuade an audience. In the second part, you will identify premises used to build a logical argument devoid of rhetoric.
Using the Unit VII Assignment Template , review the political speech regarding the construction of the proposed factory. Identify the rhetorical devices, ethos, and pathos in the template. Next, review the additional relevant information that was omitted from the speech. Using this information, identify premises for a logical argument based on relevant information in the template.
View the Unit VII Sample Assignment for an example of how your completed assignment should look. APA Style is not required for this assignment, and no outside resources are required.

Categories
Philosophy

Your assignment for this unit involves two parts. In the first part, you will be

Your assignment for this unit involves two parts. In the first part, you will be identifying rhetorical devices used to persuade an audience. In the second part, you will identify premises used to build a logical argument devoid of rhetoric.
Using the Unit VII Assignment Template , review the political speech regarding the construction of the proposed factory. Identify the rhetorical devices, ethos, and pathos in the template. Next, review the additional relevant information that was omitted from the speech. Using this information, identify premises for a logical argument based on relevant information in the template.
View the Unit VII Sample Assignment for an example of how your completed assignment should look. APA Style is not required for this assignment, and no outside resources are required.

Categories
Philosophy

Please no plagiarism or paraphrasing without source. For this journal assignment

Please no plagiarism or paraphrasing without source.
For this journal assignment, briefly answer each of the following prompts:
Critical Thinking
After reading the required resources for this week and participating in the discussion, how do you define critical thinking? You will want to carry this definition with you, so keep it brief – perhaps 4 to 6 lines. You will find many definitions online – don’t be tempted to just quickly copy one; try to form your own so that it is meaningful to you.
Heart of the Matter
Considering just what you read in Chapter 2.3 “Looking Ahead” why do you think the authors see Chapters 12, 13, and 14 as the “heart of the matter”?
What do you think they mean by that?
What two concepts do the authors say these chapters emphasize?
How do you define these concepts?
Why do you think the authors find these concepts important to critical thinking?
Challenges & Insights
What do you see as your greatest challenge for this session in general? For this class in particular?
How do you think you can use the concepts in these first three chapters to help you meet these challenges as well as challenges in your personal life as a member of your family and your community?
If you include references to outside sources (beyond the textbook), make sure you cite them properly.
Writing Requirements (APA format)
Length: 1 -2 pages (not including prompts, title page or references page)
1-inch margins
Double spaced
12-point Times New Roman font
Title page
References page (as needed)
I’ve attached the book. This is the assignment that is due