philosophical essay
Choose one of the prompts below and in approximately 500-900 words, answer every part of it as directly, thoroughly, and precisely as possible, explaining key ideas in your own words and citing evidence from the course’s assigned texts:
Prompt A [Descartes and Panikkar]:
Choose one thing that in your experience is often said about God. How certain do you think Descartes might say human beings can be that this assertion is true, and what reasons would he provide for his conclusion? In your view, would Panikkar likely agree or disagree with Descartes on this matter, and for what reasons? Do you personally think that this likely response by Panikkar to Descartes would be well-reasoned, and why or why not?
Prompt B [Kant and Buber]:
Come up with your own original example of a ‘moral dilemma’, or other morally-relevant situation. What would Kant advise as the right course of action in this situation, and why (that is, by what method would he suggest this answer should be reached and why)? In your view, would Buber likely agree or disagree with Kant’s views on this matter, and for what reasons? Do you personally think that this likely response by Buber to Kant would be well-reasoned, and why or why not?
Prompt C [Epicurus and Heidegger]:
Imagine that you were diagnosed with a terminal illness, and were told that you had only a short time, say 6 months, left to live. How should you respond to this news, according to Epicurus (and, conversely, what is one way you shouldn’t respond to it)? Do you suppose that Heidegger would agree or disagree with Epicurus’ advice to you, and why? What is some advice which Heidegger might offer you instead? Do you personally think that Heidegger’s likely response to Epicurus would be well-reasoned, and why or why not?
—————————————————————————————————
Formatting:
12-point font, double-spaced. Cite appropriately (for any specific, direct attributions of claims to an author) either parenthetically at the end of sentences or in footnotes, indicating abbreviated source title and page number. Direct quotes and close paraphrases (considered together) should comprise no more than 30% of the text of your submission.
—————————————————————————————————-
Grading Criteria:
[Listed Roughly in order of importance, with ‘Relevance’ being the umbrella under which the other factors are understood.]
Relevance: Did you properly and fully address the prompt questions as they were asked?
Completeness/thoroughness: Did you answer every part of the question, explaining in your own words all the important key points of the content along the way?
Evidence (textual) provided: Did you make a solid case for your interpretation of the text by citing evidence in support of your specific claims about the author’s ideas?
Clarity/Precision of Expression: Did you write clearly, make your thoughts as transparent as possible to the reader, and choose words that aptly described what you meant to say? Did you include the material that is necessary in order to directly and completely respond to the question, avoiding confusing the reader with tangential thoughts?
Proper scholarship (citation format): Did you choose a coherent citation style and consistently stick to it? Did you cite readings that were assigned for the class?
—————————————————————————————————-
General Writing Tips:
– Answer the question as if you were answering someone who asked you in person (i.e., give a relevant, direct, complete answer; this does not mean that you should speak imprecisely or too informally).
– Explain key ideas in your own words, giving the reader the impression that you understand what you’re saying, but whenever attributing a claim to an author, cite (and in the few cases you directly quote, make sure to explain the quote).
– Don’t bother with flowery/drawn-out introductions or conclusion paragraphs; if you write these paragraphs at all, make them a very brief and to-the-point summary of the points you will make (or have made). In such a short submission, it’s likely better to skip them entirely and jump right into answering the question.
– Expect to include citations [but not necessarily direct quotes] often. Your citations are there to provide evidence that your claims about an author’s ideas are based in specific passages of the text, and to give your reader an easy way to understand how your claims constitute a direct interpretation of that text.
– You may cite the lectures, but your main source of evidence for your claims should be the text.
– This is an exercise in textual interpretation, not an encyclopedic summary of a thinker’s ideas. You should give only what background information is necessary to clarify your response to the prompt question, as it becomes relevant to the points you’re making.Choose one of the prompts below and in approximately 500-900 words, answer every part of it as directly, thoroughly, and precisely as possible, explaining key ideas in your own words and citing evidence from the course’s assigned texts:
Prompt A [Descartes and Panikkar]:
Choose one thing that in your experience is often said about God. How certain do you think Descartes might say human beings can be that this assertion is true, and what reasons would he provide for his conclusion? In your view, would Panikkar likely agree or disagree with Descartes on this matter, and for what reasons? Do you personally think that this likely response by Panikkar to Descartes would be well-reasoned, and why or why not?
Prompt B [Kant and Buber]:
Come up with your own original example of a ‘moral dilemma’, or other morally-relevant situation. What would Kant advise as the right course of action in this situation, and why (that is, by what method would he suggest this answer should be reached and why)? In your view, would Buber likely agree or disagree with Kant’s views on this matter, and for what reasons? Do you personally think that this likely response by Buber to Kant would be well-reasoned, and why or why not?
Prompt C [Epicurus and Heidegger]:
Imagine that you were diagnosed with a terminal illness, and were told that you had only a short time, say 6 months, left to live. How should you respond to this news, according to Epicurus (and, conversely, what is one way you shouldn’t respond to it)? Do you suppose that Heidegger would agree or disagree with Epicurus’ advice to you, and why? What is some advice which Heidegger might offer you instead? Do you personally think that Heidegger’s likely response to Epicurus would be well-reasoned, and why or why not?
—————————————————————————————————
Formatting:
12-point font, double-spaced. Cite appropriately (for any specific, direct attributions of claims to an author) either parenthetically at the end of sentences or in footnotes, indicating abbreviated source title and page number. Direct quotes and close paraphrases (considered together) should comprise no more than 30% of the text of your submission.
—————————————————————————————————-
Grading Criteria:
[Listed Roughly in order of importance, with ‘Relevance’ being the umbrella under which the other factors are understood.]
Relevance: Did you properly and fully address the prompt questions as they were asked?
Completeness/thoroughness: Did you answer every part of the question, explaining in your own words all the important key points of the content along the way?
Evidence (textual) provided: Did you make a solid case for your interpretation of the text by citing evidence in support of your specific claims about the author’s ideas?
Clarity/Precision of Expression: Did you write clearly, make your thoughts as transparent as possible to the reader, and choose words that aptly described what you meant to say? Did you include the material that is necessary in order to directly and completely respond to the question, avoiding confusing the reader with tangential thoughts?
Proper scholarship (citation format): Did you choose a coherent citation style and consistently stick to it? Did you cite readings that were assigned for the class?
—————————————————————————————————-
General Writing Tips:
– Answer the question as if you were answering someone who asked you in person (i.e., give a relevant, direct, complete answer; this does not mean that you should speak imprecisely or too informally).
– Explain key ideas in your own words, giving the reader the impression that you understand what you’re saying, but whenever attributing a claim to an author, cite (and in the few cases you directly quote, make sure to explain the quote).
– Don’t bother with flowery/drawn-out introductions or conclusion paragraphs; if you write these paragraphs at all, make them a very brief and to-the-point summary of the points you will make (or have made). In such a short submission, it’s likely better to skip them entirely and jump right into answering the question.
– Expect to include citations [but not necessarily direct quotes] often. Your citations are there to provide evidence that your claims about an author’s ideas are based in specific passages of the text, and to give your reader an easy way to understand how your claims constitute a direct interpretation of that text.
– You may cite the lectures, but your main source of evidence for your claims should be the text.
– This is an exercise in textual interpretation, not an encyclopedic summary of a thinker’s ideas. You should give only what background information is necessary to clarify your response to the prompt question, as it becomes relevant to the points you’re making.
there are more requirements that need to be met before I purchase. My paper must use a minimum of 8 secondary sources that are all either peer-reviewed or published works of literature. In addition, the essay must center on the primary source of Don Siegels 1956 Invasion of the Body Snatchers. I will also need an abstract, revised annotated bibliography, and a 2 page reflection on research and research process. The Reflection should focus on the following questions or issues:
Detail the process you went through in developing your topic, the challenges you faced finding the sources, and the strategies you developed to overcome those challenges.
Indicate how you developed the topic based on the sources you discovered.
Assess whether your research was thorough enough to provide a meaningful synthesis of the sources.
Discuss what you learned about the research process.