Description
Guidelines:
This paper is worth 5 points. Turn this paper in at the end of the term via “turn-it-in” within Canvas. Plagiarism of any kind will result in a grade of zero. This paper should be 2-4 pages. Use MLA guidelines. All references should be properly documented. Using MLA guidelines, properly document any references or ideas that are not your own. WARRNING: DO NOT USE WIKIPEDIA IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A LEGITIMATE SOURCE. ANY USE OF WIKIPEDIA WILL RESULT IN A GRADE OF ZERO. USE ONLY TRUE PROFESSIONAL SOURCES. The purpose of this paper is for you to intellectually explore a topic, issue, problem, or figure relevant to our course material. The readings from our course should be the primary “source” that you utilize. Practice standards of good writing. Have a clear thesis. Devise evidence for your thesis. Make a sound, logically constructed argument. Proofread vigorously. Correct English grammar is expected.
Topics:
(1) What theory of the meaning of life, as presented in our text (chapter 10), do you find most compelling. Why? (Hint: Think about any of the figures discussed, Marcus Aralias, Epicurus, Tolstoy, Stace, Russell, Sartre, Camus, Nagel, as well as the film Amelie (2001) by Jean-Pierre Jeunet.)
(2) After Reading chapter 9, consider the film Boomerang!, (1947) by Elia Kazan. How does this film argue in favor of Kantianism and radically against Utilitarianism? Consider the readings in our text. Use your own mind to formulate a response.(Hints: Think about Kant’s view of persons and the respect that we owe them as members of the moral community. Think of the accused man and the district attorney's decision to defend him. What possible consequences might the district attorney face by defending the innocence of the accused? Why would Kant recommend such a defense? Why would Utilitarian recommend against such a defense.)
(3) After reading chapter 8, consider the film Detour (1945) by Edgar Ulmer. Is Al Roberts a victim of “moral luck” (--as described in chapter 8 of our text--)? Are the arguments for moral luck strong or weak? Is there any sense in which Moral Luck might be legitimate? How is it a threat to ethical theorizing in general? (Hint: Think about the notion of moral responsibility and the conditions that are typically required for full responsibility. Think of Al’s situation. How much is he to “blame” for his predicament?)
(4) Consider the film Memento, 2000, by Christopher Nolan. Analyze “Lennie” in terms of the various theories of personal identity discussed in chapter 5. What theory is the film-writer probably promoting? Why?
(5) Consider philosophical skepticism as discussed in chapter 4. Could you disprove radical external world skepticism? If yes, how? If not, why not and what does this mean?
(6) How philosophically plausible is the Buddhist notion of “no-self” as discussed in chapter 10? Is the idea of “no-self” even desirable? Do people have an inherent disposition to “have” a self? Is having a “self” really a bad thing, as Buddhists believe?
Explanation & Answer
Attached.
Introduction
Feasibility of the concept of not-self
Paragraph 1
- The concept of ‘not-self’ is one of the most controversial philosophical teachings in
Buddhism
- From a spiritual context, most people believe there is a part of themselves ‘the soul’
which is permanent, and which dictates their lives
Paragraph 2
- A ‘self’ is deemed to be the agent of human behavior and an occupier of the body
- The body manifests the attributes of self and moral qualities
Paragraph 3
- The diachronic component of the ‘not-self’ concept proposes that it is impossible for
any aspect to eternally remain unchanged
- If two elements are considered identical, the interpretation is that they share the same
attributes, such as age, appearance, and external dimensions
Paragraph 4
-
Critics may argue against the concept of ‘not-self’ using a synchronic identity perspective
The synchronic identity perspective proposes that while there may not be a single identity
over time, there is that identity that exists at any point in time
Name
Tutor
Course
Date
Buddhist Concept of 'Not-self'
Philosophical plausibility of the Buddhist notion of not-self
The concept of 'not-self' is one of the most controversial philosophical teachings in
Buddhism. From a spiritual context, most people believe there is a part of themselves 'the soul'
which is permanent, and which dictates their lives. According to most religious texts, the soul
progresses to the afterlife upon the death of the body it initially occupied (Das and Sahu, 123).
Buddhism is based on the ideals of freeing the body from any form of pain or suffering. The
belief of the existence of a permanent self creates the foundation on which misleading religious
beliefs are based (Whitehead et al. 2). Such teachings culminate into suffering. The belief...
Review
Review
