In “‘Testimony Against the Whole,’” Bregazzi discusses some ways that political co-existence could be achieved. How are individuals able to break with their legal or social context in order to relate to people who are different from them?

In “‘Testimony Against the Whole,’” Bregazzi discusses some ways that political co-existence could be achieved. How are individuals able to break with their legal or social context in order to relate to people who are different from them? Explain how “solitude,” according to Bregazzi and Irigaray, is necessary to being able to live with others, especially others who are different? How, according to Irigaray, is it possible to develop solitude and singularity? What are vertical and horizontal knowledges? How can gratitude help to break from the past and create a new future together? How can solitude help to perceive who the other actually is, as opposed to a misleading representation of them? How could this help to achieve peace?

Explain, what Socrates might have meant when he said, “The unexamined life is not worth living.” Do you agree with this position? Why or why not?

PHIL 101: Introduction to Philosophy Term Paper Topics: The point of these papers will be to focus on one particular argument or theory. The goal is not to do research (looking up stuff in the library) but to focus your thoughts on one argument or one position and dig deep. Your grade on these essays will be primarily based on the clarity of your writing (that means grammar is important), the command of the material and the “depth” of your explanations. Which side of the issue you are on is completely irrelevant, what matters is how well you state your case. Please consult the course calendar and syllabus for the due date. Please upload your essays into Blackboard through the appropriate dropbox. Please choose one of the following topics: 1. Is the human being purely material, or is there an immaterial component? If the human being is purely material, what does that imply about free will? If there is an immaterial component, what does that imply about free will? In other words: address the question “are human beings just complicated machines, or is there something more to us”? and explain what is implied on both sides of the argument. Don’t just give the argument you happen to agree with; consider objections to it and respond to those objections. Note: students often write essays relying on emotion or sentiment in response to the topic above (“How bleak the world would be if we didn’t have souls” and the like). That is not what you are supposed to be doing: rather, you should write an essay that argues for a specific position and responds to counterarguments. 2. Is there a basis in nature for morality? Is there such a thing as a natural right, natural law, or natural justice? Can human beings know something about right and wrong through the use of unaided reason (i.e., without the help of revealed religion)? Is morality relative to culture, or does morality transcend culture? Explain. 3. Explain, what Socrates might have meant when he said, “The unexamined life is not worth living.” Do you agree with this position? Why or why not? 4. When we say that pursuing knowledge or wisdom for its own sake has intrinsic value, what does that statement mean? If you disagree, please explain the grounds for your disagreement.

Analyze 1 of the following speeches for its content and impact upon the play. Think about who said the speech, where is it from in the story?

Analyze 1 of the following speeches for its content and impact upon the play. Think about who said the speech, where is it from in the story? Is it only important for a specific portion of the play, or does it encompass the entire play? Does it give insight into a character’s personality, mental state, motivations, or conflicts? Is the speech talking of the past, present, future, or a combination of these times? When you are analyzing, you are also trying to prove the point you are making (How it impacts/influences the play). This means bringing in more than just the quote (the quote is the starting point). Make connections to later in the play, to your own life and understanding (you are a credible source so long as you make yourself one–meaning that you backup your own experiences with evidence and reasoning). 1. There’s no art To find the mind’s construction in the face: He was a gentleman on whom I built An absolute trust. O worthiest cousin! The sin of my ingratitude even now Was heavy on me: thou art so far before That swiftest wing of recompense is slow To overtake thee. Would thou hadst less deserved, That the proportion both of thanks and payment Might have been mine! only I have left to say, More is thy due than more than all can pay. 2. Thou hast it now: king, Cawdor, Glamis, all, As the weird women promised, and, I fear, Thou play’dst most foully for’t: yet it was said It should not stand in thy posterity, But that myself should be the root and father Of many kings. If there come truth from them– As upon thee, Macbeth, their speeches shine– Why, by the verities on thee made good, May they not be my oracles as well, And set me up in hope? But hush! no more. 3.But Macbeth is. A good and virtuous nature may recoil In an imperial charge. But I shall crave your pardon; That which you are my thoughts cannot transpose: Angels are bright still, though the brightest fell; Though all things foul would wear the brows of grace, Yet grace must still look so. 4. She should have died hereafter; There would have been a time for such a word. To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow, Creeps in this petty pace from day to day To the last syllable of recorded time, And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle! Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player That struts and frets his hour upon the stage And then is heard no more: it is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.