Write a 2500-word critical position essay on one of the topics given below. Your

Write a 2500-word critical position essay on one of the topics given below. Your

Write a 2500-word critical position essay on one of the topics given below. Your assignment should be double spaced. Make certain that your documentation is complete and that you take every effort to acknowledge intellectual indebtedness. 
Both Socrates and the Buddha talk about the idea of self. Socrates seems to stress the importance of self, and the Buddha seems to focus on “no-self” (or de-self). Did Socrates try to teach people to be more self-centered or egoist by emphasizing the self? Did Buddha try to say that we should not take moral responsibility for our behaviour? Might it be possible that they are teaching the same thing about self through different approaches? (Hint: self as a moral agent; self as an ego—these are two different things.)

Explain in what ways the shadows,and/or puppets, and/or cave in Plato’s Allegory

Explain in what ways the shadows,and/or puppets, and/or cave in Plato’s Allegory

Explain in what ways the shadows,and/or puppets, and/or cave in Plato’s Allegory of the Cave are Bullshit using material covered in “ON Bullshit” given by Harry Frankfurt. Once you’ve done this, imagine you are the prisoner who was freed and given your response to the cave and tell the other prisoners and what would you say to convince them if you did? If you don’t think you should go back and tell them after you’ve been frrrd and learned the “truth” justify your reasons for not going back. 

You are to write a ‘missive’ or a very brief essay discussing your thoughts on t

You are to write a ‘missive’ or a very brief essay discussing your thoughts on t

You are to write a ‘missive’ or a very brief essay discussing your thoughts on the meaning of material life, meaning human made and human modified objects that aid and regulate human existence.  The purpose of this exercise is for you to share your thoughts on whatever subject within the idea of material culture that you see fit. The essay can be philosophical, a close discussion of an object or material phenomenon (say, for example, plastic particulate in everything).  The only condition of the essay is that it be 200 words exactly (not 199, not 201, not any number of words save 200).  A word must accompany your essay and the assignment title, course information, your name and student number must not be included in the word count. 
I’ve attached the course outline, you can refer to week 1 course materials

People sometimes kill or cause significant harm to others. And at least sometime

People sometimes kill or cause significant harm to others. And at least sometime

People sometimes kill or cause significant harm to others. And at least sometimes, we think that they are morally responsible for what they have done. But as we learned, thinking this is problematic. What is the problem (I attached my notes from the lecture for answering this, points from the lecture HAVE to be referenced) with thinking that sometimes, people are morally responsible for what they have done? To present the problem, offer an argument with premises and a conclusion and explain why its premises are thought to be plausible. Does the work of Frankfurt, in his “Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility,” show that the argument fails? Explain.

Jean-Paul Sartre’s existentialism places emphasis on ‘radical freedom’ and the a

Jean-Paul Sartre’s existentialism places emphasis on ‘radical freedom’ and the a

Jean-Paul Sartre’s existentialism places emphasis on ‘radical freedom’ and the absence of a predetermined essence. It resists compatibility with religious pursuits, nevertheless, an exploration reveals that there is potential for a fruitful synthesis between existential autonomy and the transcendent quest for the divine. In order to reveal this, the following thesis aims to compare and contrast the perspectives of Jean-Paul Sartre with that of a Christian existentialist, Gabriel Marcel.
Through a meticulous analysis and comparison of Jean-Paul Sartre’s ‘Being & Nothingness’ (1943) and the thought of Gabriel Marcel, this dissertation contends that the pursuit of transcendence can coexist harmoniously with Sartrean existentialism, providing individuals with a diverse yet equally valid path towards what Sartre defines as human completion.
This thesis challenges conventional interpretations by arguing that the existential void, rather than being an insurmountable obstacle, serves as the catalyst for one’s understanding of the Human Condition. From the autonomous self-creation advocated by Sartre to the relational encounter with the divine as proposed by Marcel.
Chapter 1: Radical Freedom and the Existential Void: Sartre’s Perspective
Overview:
This chapter will provide an in-depth analysis of Jean-Paul Sartre’s existential philosophy, focusing on his key concepts of radical freedom, existential void, and self-creation as articulated in Being and Nothingness.
Key Points:
• Detailed exposition of Sartre’s idea of radical freedom and its implications for human existence.
• Examination of the existential void and how it shapes the individual’s quest for meaning.
• Analysis of Sartre’s rejection of predetermined essence and the emphasis on self-determination.
• Discussion on the perceived incompatibility of Sartrean existentialism with religious pursuits.
Chapter 2: Encountering the Transcendent Other: Gabriel Marcel’s Christian Existentialism
Overview:
This chapter will delve into Gabriel Marcel’s existential philosophy, highlighting his approach to the transcendent and the relational aspects of human existence, contrasting it with Sartre’s atheistic existentialism.
Key Points:
• Introduction to Marcel’s Christian existentialism and the concept of the Transcendent Other.
• Exploration of relational encounters and their significance in achieving human fulfilment.
• Discussion of Marcel’s views on mystery, faith, and the role of God in human existence.
• Analysis of how Marcel’s perspective addresses human incompletion and the quest for meaning.
Chapter 3: Towards a Synthesis: Bridging Sartrean Autonomy and Marcelian Transcendence
Overview:
This chapter will compare the existential philosophies of Sartre and Marcel, arguing for a synthesis that accommodates existential autonomy and the quest for transcendence, ultimately favouring Marcel’s perspective.
Key Points:
• Comparative analysis of Sartre’s and Marcel’s approaches to the existential void and human incompletion.
• Examination of the potential for reconciling Sartrean radical freedom with Marcelian transcendence.
• Argument in favour of Marcel’s perspective as a step further and beyond Sartre’s approach to human completion, whilst also acknowledging Sartre’s vital contribution.
• Discussion on the implications of this synthesis for contemporary existential and religious thought.

I am needing essay wrote which will be based on the movie (ex machina) you would

I am needing essay wrote which will be based on the movie (ex machina) you would

I am needing essay wrote which will be based on the movie (ex machina) you would need to watch the movie and read from the philosophy book in order to complete this assignment, the sources should also be from the book and the movie . I have attached detailed instructions 
For this paper and will provide login information for the online book as well 

Explain Locke’s view of human nature. Use details from the textbook to support y

Explain Locke’s view of human nature. Use details from the textbook to support y

Explain Locke’s view of human nature. Use details from the textbook to support your description. Explain 
Using Vaughn’s Ch. 8 and the excerpts from Locke reprinted there, explain Locke’s view of human nature. Use details from the textbook to support your description of his view. Next, explain Hobbes’s view of human nature, again using details from the textbook to support your description of Hobbes’s view. How does Locke’s view of human nature differ from Hobbes’ view? Which thinker’s argument do you find more convincing? Explain fully, and defend your answer.

Essay Students are to complete an essay between 500-700 words in response to one

Essay
Students are to complete an essay between 500-700 words in response to one

Essay
Students are to complete an essay between 500-700 words in response to one of the prompts listed below. While you can go over the word limit, you should ensure that your essay is at least 500 words.  Essays that come in well under 500 words may have marks taken off.  
The essay is to be a personal piece of writing and does not need to be written in a standard academic form. Students should attempt to relate the issues in question to their own experiences. 
Essays will be graded based on the following considerations:
– the students’ ability to identify and summarize central points in the reading in a clear and well-organized manner
– the students’ overall understanding of the material 
– the student’s ability to relate the readings to their own experiences and to raise thoughtful questions about the material.
please choose one from the essay prompts
(): Ryan, Pacifism as War Absolitionism, pp. 1-41.
: Ryan, Pacifism as War Absolitionism, pp. 42-69. 
Essay Prompts: 
(1) Outline the realist view of war (i.e., what does a realist think war is all about?), and they think that the world would be safer and more secure if everyone thought as they do. Do you agree with the realist position on war? Why or why not?
(2) Outline some of the principles of just war theory and discuss why you believe they make for a compelling account of a just war.
(3) One of the common criticisms of just war theory is that it is too dangerous a tool to rely upon because human beings are so self-deceptive. Drawing on our readings, outline some of the ways human beings tend to deceive themselves. Do you agree that our tendency to deceive ourselves makes just war theory too dangerous a tool to rely upon? Why or why not?
(4) One of the issues discussed in just war theory is whether soldiers should be expected to know whether their war is just or not. Drawing on our readings, outline some of the reasons why a soldier should be expected to know whether their war is just or not. Do you agree that they should know and be held responsible for this or not?
(5) It is sometimes argued that the use of lethal armed robots will increase the number of wars in the world. Outline some of the reasons why people believe this. Do you agree that the increased use of lethal armed robots will only increase the number of wars in the world? Why or why not?
(6) Some argue that, in the future, the use of autonomous robots may actually make wars more just. Outline some of the reasons why certain people believe this to be the case. Do you agree with this position? Why or why not?
(7) One of the articles we read raises the question of who should be held responsible for the actions of lethal armed robots during war. Drawing on our robots, outline why it is thought that certain parties should not be held responsible for the actions of lethal armed robots. In your view, who, if anyone, should be held responsible and why?