****If you’d like to help me with this paper, please indicate in your notes with the bid which question you would like to answer.**** Please read all of the directions before placing a bid.
In considering the following questions, I need the writer to be very familiar with Philosophy and philosophers. This far in the class we have studied: The first few Chapters of the Plato Republic, Epictetus, Aristotle, St. Paul, St. Augustine, St. Thomas, and Richard Hooker. It’s extremely important that you understand the concepts below from the point of view of these philosophers, so it may be beneficial that you have read one of more of the books about these philosophers.
1 of the 4 following questions must be answered in a 4-5 page, double spaced argumentative essay in APA format. Be sure to consider objections to your position.
1. Which of the philosophers that we studied do you think has the best account of the relationship between human happiness and misfortune? Justify your answer in part by showing why your choice is superior to at least two of the other philosophers’ views.
2. Does an adequate account of human nature need to make reference to a supernatural end? Justify your answer in part by showing why it is superior to that of at least two of the philosophers we have studied who disagree with you. Make sure that you offer a philosophical justification for your answer.
3. Which of the philosophers that we have studied offered the best account of justice? Justify your answer in part by showing that your philosopher’s answer is superior to that of his rivals.
4. How should the fact of human evil affect our view of human nature and our ability to achieve happiness? Is the universe ultimately morally absurd, or must/does justice win out in the end? Construct your answer with specific reference to at least two of the philosophers that we have studied, and be sure to offer a philosophical defense of your position.
NOTES from the professor:
Note1: for essay question one, Glaucon and Adeimantus are not to be considered “philosophers;” if you wish to defend Plato, you must consider the thinkers who follow him including Epictetus, Aristotle, and the Christians.
Note2: treat the Christian thinkers (St. Paul, St. Augustine, & St. Thomas) as “one” philosopher for purposes of understanding the term “philosopher” in this exam.
Note3: on the questions which might be answered with a religious solution, note that I have specifically required a philosophical solution. Religious truth may be a part of the solution, but it must be explicated and to some degree justified philosophically. If you have any questions about this requirement, be sure to ask me in advance of the exam due date.
Note4: in a number of the questions I have required you to justify your answer “in part” by consideration and contrast with the views of other philosophers. This is not to suggest that merely explaining that you disagree with someone else constitutes an adequate justification for your view. So, be sure to offer a solid argument for your position in addition to answering any objections from other philosophers.
Note5: regardless of which question you choose to answer, you must cite the original primary sources, not just the chapters in the course textbook, Philosophy of Human Nature.
Note6: be sure to employ footnotes for all documentation and annotation. 1
the anthem, brave new world
Paper instructions:
In the following passage, the contemporary social critic Neil Postman contrasts George Orwell’s vision of the future, as expressed in the novel 1984 (written in 1948), with that of Aldous Huxley in the novel Brave New World (1932). Read the passage, considering Postman’s assertion that Huxley’s vision is more relevant today than is Orwell’s. Then, using your own critical understanding of contemporary society as evidence, write a carefully argued essay that agrees or disagrees with Postman’s assertion. Please integrate Ayn Rand’s “anthem” into your response as well.
We were keeping our eye on 1984. When the year came and the prophecy didn’t, thoughtful Americans sang softly in praise of themselves. The roots of liberal democracy had held. Wherever else the terror had happened, we, at least, had not been visited by Orwellian nightmares. But we had forgotten that alongside Orwell’s dark vision, there was another – slightly older, slightly less well known, equally chilling: Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. Contrary to common belief even among the educated, Huxley and Orwell did not prophesy the same thing. Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley’s vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.
What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passitivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny “failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions”. In 1984, Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In “Brave New World”, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us.
Place this order with us and get 18% discount now! to earn your discount enter this code: special18 If you need assistance chat with us now by clicking the live chat button.