Short response anthropology

With the potential for climate change looming, what do you think will be our next source of food and why? Replies should be between 50 and 75 words.
2. Considering the cultural significance of naming ceremonies in so many societies, what do you think motivated your parents when they named you? Does that have any influence on your sense of self? (My name is Savannah, and I am European) 150 words.

Discussion: ocean homework

We are starting Oceans this week. 🌊💙 But don’t worry, we are still connected to our old friends, rocks. The structure of Ocean Basins and the Coast is controlled by plate tectonics and how sediment is eroded and deposited.
The Oceans face big challenges but I know that you have ideas about how to fix them!
Post Due by: Sunday Oct. 30
Initial Post
Introduce an Ocean problem. For example you could discuss plastic pollution, the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, over-fishing, acidification, sea level rise, or something else. Share an idea for a solution to this problem.
Reply Post
Comment on at least one of your classmate’s posts.
This Discussion is Graded for 10 Participation points.

Discussion on Aristotle

As I mentioned numerous times, Aristotle can be quite difficult. So feel free to discuss the homework questions on Aristotle with your group, especially the critical questions.
But, also, happiness (eudaimonia) better translates as ‘flourishing’–it is the full development of our potential. How would living according the the virtues that Aristotle discusses change how you live your own life? How would it change the way we live together as a society.
Aristotle’s ethics is about cultivating virtue and shaping character. Our Founding Fathers often talked about “Civic Virtue” and how society shapes our character. In what ways could we be living according to the civic virtues? Are we?

Awake, film

BACKGROUND and MATERIALS I: Awake, A Dream From Standing Rock
The film I assigned, Awake, A Dream From Standing Rock (2017), is currently available to stream for free from the producers. Please send a donation if you are able and feel that you would like to support this work. When the film was created, an activist guide was offered here: Microsoft Word – CallsToActionBrochure .docx (awakethefilm.org).
For a deeper look into the structure of the film, I recommend Deep histories and fluid futures in “Awake: A Dream from Standing Rock” by Emily Roehl.
It breaks down each ‘act’ of the film, the importance of the media in shaping public consciousness of this event and includes screenshots illustrating the narrative strategies of the directors. My choice of this film is definitely a call-back to the way that Hampton, King, and Wells all crafted public messages to bring others to collective action. Content-warning: The film also includes scenes of violent confrontation with the private security forces and the police.
We will go into more depth about the movements connected to Standing Rock and their philosophical basis as conclude our class.
PROMPT (the same as for our previous film)
This prompt is simple, but deep: What did you learn from watching this film? You don’t need to write more than 2-3 paragraphs, but please reserve your comments for genuine reflection.
Please write the answer in SIMPLE language. Make sure to watch the movie and go over
other links to complete the assignment. The paper should not be more than 1.5 pages
long.
Thank you!

Impact of the philosophical mindset and Ancient Greek philosophy

ASSIGNMENT: Write a 3-4 page (approximately 700-1000 words) reflection essay about the impact of the philosophical mindset and Ancient Greek philosophy on your own views.In order to foster learning and growth, all essays you submit must be newly written specifically for this course. Any recycled work will be sent back with a 0, and you will be given one attempt to redo the Touchstone.
A. Assignment Guidelines
DIRECTIONS: As reported in Plato’s account The Apology, Socrates famously claimed at his trial that “The unexamined life is not worth living.” In this course, you have had the opportunity to examine your own life and reality through the thoughts of the Ancient Greek philosophers. The purpose of this touchstone assignment is for you (1) to engage with the philosophical ideas presented in this course and (2) to reflect on how these philosophical ideas have impacted your own life.Part I: Philosophical ThinkingIn the first part of the touchstone, you will be distinguishing between the three primary branches of philosophy.Consider the three following questions:
What is knowledge?
What is reality made of?
What is the good life and how ought I to live it?
These are the basic questions that were considered in different forms by the major figures in Ancient Greek philosophy. But they are also critical questions for our own lives today, whether we are philosophers or not.Part I of this assignment should be approximately 1-2 pages (300-600 words) and cover each of the following steps:
First, you should define philosophy and then distinguish and define each of the three main branches of philosophy covered in this class.
Then, identify which of the above questions is associated with each branch of philosophy.
You should illustrate the differences between the three branches of philosophy using examples from the course. For example, explain how Socrates would answer the question “What is knowledge?” or how Epictetus would answer the question “What is the good life?”
Part II: ReflectionFor the second part of the touchstone, now that you’ve distinguished between the three main branches of philosophy, you will focus on one of those three questions from Part I and use that as a starting point and guide for your personal philosophical reflection.The purpose of Part II is for you to reflect on the philosophical mindset and some of the ideas presented in this course and apply them to your own life. This reflection is more open-ended than Part I, but should include reflections on the following questions:
What does it mean to think philosophically? How can thinking philosophically help me in my own life?
What impact do the ideas of the Ancient Greek philosophers have on my own views and opinions?
Then, based on these reflections, you should give your own answer to whichever of the three questions from Part I you chose to focus on. (“What is knowledge?”; “What is reality?”; “What is the good life?”)
Part II of this assignment should be approximately 1-2 pages (300-600 words). You should write at least one paragraph for each of the three prompts listed above.In answering these reflection questions, you are free to draw from your own experiences as well as bringing in the ideas of different Ancient Greek philosophers. Please note: Some philosophers will be more suited for particular questions than others. For example, Epictetus has a lot to say about “What is the good life and how ought I to live it?” while not saying much about knowledge or reality. Plato and Aristotle wrote a great deal about all three questions.

Rule-Based Ethics and Kant

BACKGROUND
This week we are moving onto an examination of universal or rule-based ethics. These are also called deontological. Kant, probably the most famous ethicist in history, is our first figure; we will also look to Martin Luther King, Jr and others as we consider the value of having black-and-white universal rules for basic human rights, right moral action, and dignity. If Aristotle said that we needed to learn how to be courageous, Kant would say that we just need to BE courageous and hold ourselves to the standard of fulfilling our duty to abide by obvious standards of right and wrong.

We will be critical of Kant’s philosophy, but we should first understand the parts of it that have been important and enduring for ethics.
Before reviewing any materials, please ask yourself these questions:
Are you capable of rational decision-making? For Kant, this means something very specific, but it boils down to not contradicting yourself. If you believe in any basic moral principles, such as it is wrong to lie–Kant believes that RATIONALLY you aren’t allowed to make exceptions for your own self-interest or because you believe lying will lead to better results than telling the truth. Ironically, rationalizing something (making up false reasons) is absolutely opposed to being rational. Kant would very much disagree with Jeff Goldblum’s famous monologue in the Big Chill: Big Chill – Rationalizations – YouTube .
Are you able to command your own actions (i.e. exercise free will)? You may sometimes react without thinking, and you may not be able to command your actions all the time. BUT, at least once in your life, you have willed yourself to action intentionally. A popular example of the difference between instinctive reactions and free choice would be making the decision to run INTO a burning building. Everything in you and every other animal* tells us to run away from danger, but we are able to intentionally command ourselves to act differently using our will! If you said, YES, you are able to command your actions (at least sometimes), then you believe that you have free will. If you said, NO, it doesn’t matter, because you don’t have free will anyway. 😉
Kant takes these two points one step further. He believes that because we can choose to act in accordance to our Reason, we should. To him, our rational capacity is our highest and most uniquely human capacity, and moral or ethical judgments of right and wrong should be made using that ‘highest’ capacity. Moreover, since all of humanity shares this rational capacity, reason is also a UNIVERSAL (applies to everyone) and ABSOLUTE (no exceptions, you either use reason or admit to being irrational) FOUNDATION for moral judgment.
READ and WATCH
These two videos and the introduction at the beginning of this week’s reading are strong enough, that I will not be recording a separate audio lecture. I will record a lecture next week to draw connections between Kant and the rest of our readings. Please watch these two links first: PHILOSOPHY: Immanuel Kant – YouTube and Kant

discussion and two replies

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000W91350/ref=dbs_p_ebk_dam?
here is a link to the book’s first two chapters
After reading chapters 1-2 of Annie Dillard’s Pilgrim at Tinker Creek submit a discussion board posting that completes one of the following five options:
Option 1: AwakeningAt the end of the second paragraph of the text, the narrator states:
“We wake, if ever wake at all, to mystery, rumors of death, beauty, violence….’Seems like we’re just set down here,’ a woman said to me recently, ‘and don’t nobody know why.’” (Dillard, page 3)
Consider what it might mean to be either awake or asleep as a human being. If we accept it as true that some humans never wake at all, it follows that some of us in the class may be asleep while others are awake! Note further, that in this reading, the narrator is awoken by an external force: the cat that violently claws at the sleeping narrator. Using details from the Dillard text as support, sketch out some traits that might characterize the ‘sleeping human’ versus the ‘awake’ or ‘awakening human.’ Consider whether it is possible for sleeping humans to awaken on their own, or whether an external force is always required and provide support for your answer.
Option 2: An extended, emergency bivouacOn page 8 of the text the narrator states:
“That’s it’s rough out there and chancy is no surprise. Every live thing is a survivor on a kind of extended, emergency bivouac.”
Interpret what it might mean to say that every live thing is ‘a survivor an extended, emergency, bivouac.’ Use details from the text to support your interpretation. Develop two significant questions that follow from your interpretation. Explain why you find them significant.
Option 3: We must take a wider viewOn page 10 of the Dillard text, the narrator exhorts:
Our life is a faint tracing on the surface of mystery, like the idle, curved tunnels of leaf miners on the face of a leaf. We must somehow take a wider view, look at the whole landscape, really see it, and describe what’s going on here. Then we can at least wail the right question into the swaddling band of darkness, or if it comes to that, choir the proper praise.”
Identify supporting details from the text that indicate why the narrator believes that our life is filled with mystery. How does the analogy of the leaf miner support the claim that we must take a wider view? Why might describing “what’s going on here” serve as a pre-condition to learning to ask the right questions in life? Do you think that this is true? Why or why not?
Option 4: SeeingIn week one, we considered Siobhan Lyons’ suggestion that philosophers create concepts. One way of reading chapter two of the Dillard text would be to interpret it as the narrator’s attempt to develop different concepts of seeing to better describe and understand our experiences. Read chapter two of the Dillard text and identify at least two different types of seeing that the narrator describes and explain the difference between them. What might the different types of seeing imply about learning to ask the right questions in life? Use details from the text or from your own experiences to support your answer.
Option 5: Open Reading Question. Develop your own reading question by following the instructions found in this week’s folder if you wish to complete this option. These instructions are also found in the Course Information folder.
Responses to classmates:Develop a critical, sustained response to at least two of your classmates’ postings.

phil 101 module 4 how do we know the nature of reality

Paper is due in Module 7 byWednesday, October 5th (please note that this is not the usual Sunday deadline).
By Module 5, you should have chosen a topic for your paper, performed initial research, and compiled your list of sources.
The paper submission link is located in Module 7.
Paper must be typed and submitted in a Word document (doc or docx).
Paper should be 5-6 pages in length, double-spaced, using 12-point font. Title page, works cited, and appendixes will not be counted towards towards the page requirement.
Use at least four sources (the textbook may be used as one of these sources). Sources should include at least TWO journal articles or books available through the Ivy Tech Virtual Library.
Please DO NOT cite any online reference encyclopedias such as Wikipedia, Britannica, or Encarta.
All sources must be cited (must have an end note or a foot note) and the source listed in a bibliography. Paper must be written in MLA or APA format (your choice).
A TurnItin report will be generated to help identify plagiarism concerns. If the Turnitin plagiarism percentage is 25 percent or above, the instructor will review your submission. Academic honesty issues will be addressed by your instructor.
The paper must be based upon YOUR CHOICE of one of the following topics:
1. Discuss your own philosophical perspective on religion in comparison with ideas shared in Chapter 7. Include a discussion of TWO OR MORE of the following topics: Theistic and Non-Theistic Religions; The Problem of Evil; The Existence of God; Faith and Religious Experience.
2. Compare and contrast TWO views on reality that are discussed in Chapter 6. Discuss some strengths and weaknesses of each of these positions. Which perspective aligns best with your own? Explain your answer.
3. Choose and compare TWO perceptions of the “self” that are discussed in Chapter 3. Which view seems the most reasonable to you? Explain your answer.
4. Compare the Buddhist Simile of the Chariot with Plato’s Chariot Analogy. Discuss their similarities and differences.
5. Compare and contrast the ethical theories of Kant and Mill, as outlined in Chapter 6. Discuss some of the strengths and weaknesses of each of these theories. Which theory makes more sense to you? Explain your answer.

logical and critical reasoning

I chose the worldview topic. Attached is a reading on this topic.
In this project, you will create a presentation of approximately 12-15 sheets in length using PPT. This theme can be chosen from the themes, ideas, concepts, etc. from the previous modules, or it can be your own insights. Once you have come up with your theme, identify 5 passages from at least 3 of the readings that relate to your theme, at least 2-3 sentences, and explain how they connect or illuminate that theme. Include 3 real-life examples to illustrate the concept or theme you have chosen. Conclude with 3 questions to open up further discussion.

Am I right to evaluate people’s actions on my emotions?

Reflective Paper 5 pages 1,000 words MLA or APA style, Outline.
Question: Am I right to evaluate people’s actions on my emotions? (text SUBJECTIVISM IN ETHICS)
https://assignmenttask.com/answers/wp-content/uplo… <—– Pdf book as a source
1. Your personal answer to the question, supported with at least two arguments.
2. Philosopher’s answer to the question, and his arguments.3. Comparison between your answer and arguments and philosopher’s ones.You may agree or disagree with the author of the text assigned but you have to give your rationale,supported with examples, reasoning, and facts. If you disagree with them, be courteous in your criticism,keep the academic tolerance.