Dicraimer: I Need Philosophy expert on this assignemet. You better keep off if you are not a philosopher!

User Generated

grnpureoebk

Humanities

Description

Philosophy final essay Answer ONE (1) of the following prompts in essay form. NB: Use primary texts such as Aristotle work for references, no secondary sources

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Philosophy final essay Answer ONE (1) of the following prompts in essay form. Please answer every question that appears under the prompt you choose. Your essay should be a minimum of seven (7) full pages (excluding bibliography page). You must use a standard font (e.g. Helvetica Neue, Times New Roman, or Cambria), 12 point, double-spaced (or single, if you prefer). You must support all of your claims with quotes and in-text citations and/or philosophical argument in order to do well. In general, I greatly favor essays which extensively utilize the primary text (e.g. Heidegger’s “The Question Concerning Technology”) rather than secondary sources. (Any semi-educated person can repeat or paraphrase what some expert or other said, but it takes a real thinker to read and interpret a primary source and to explain it in his or her own words.) That said, secondary sources can be very helpful for understanding the material and, if you use them effectively and sparingly, can actually strengthen your essay. If you do choose to use secondary sources, you must use legitimate academic sources [i.e. not Sparknotes, Wikipedia, GradeSaver, etc.] and provide a ‘Works Cited’ page listing all of the sources you used even if they were not quoted directly (this includes all of the secondary literature I have provided for you on Blackboard). If you only use the primary text and the course notes posted on Blackboard, I will not require you to include a formal bibliography, but you still must provide in-text citations which make reference to the primary text. This final essay exam is, obviously, open notes (both yours and mine), open book, open internet, open library, etc., but please remember: if you plagiarize any part of this exam you will fail the course. Your completed exam must be submitted in PDF format via email to grimwadr@stjohns.edu by 11:59pm on Friday, May 4, 2018. Please put your name in the title of the document: “JaneSmith2.pdf” and do not submit via blackboard. Please note that LATE PAPERS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. St. John’s University does not allow me to give incompletes to undergraduate students for any reason. Optional Extra Credit Assignment: Answer any prompt (from this document or the midterm essay exam) which you have not already answered on your midterm or plan to answer for your final. The length of this piece is up to you, but the better (more thorough, well-argued, interesting, novel, thoughtful, etc.) the essay, the more extra credit it will earn. This extra credit assignment can earn you up to a maximum of 10 points on top of your final grade for the course (e.g. a C- can become a B-). I highly recommend this option for any student who has more than two unexcused absences, poor class participation, missed or failed quizzes, a poor midterm essay grade, etc. Essay Prompts: (please read carefully) (1) Interpret and explain Nietzsche’s concept of “the death of God” as it is presented in The Gay Science, focusing especially upon aphorisms 125, 343-346. In note 125 of The Gay Science Nietzsche says “God is dead!” (p.120). (He is often interpreted as a cheerful, irreverent atheist, but this is clearly wrong, for Nietzsche sees this event as one of the most important events in human history.) Why does Nietzsche put this phrase in the mouth of a madman? Who is the madman addressing? Why is the madman’s audience an important interpretive clue here? What is Nietzsche trying to make us realize about the modern age in his discussion of the death of God and its consequences? Why does Nietzsche claim that the death of God is such an important event in human history? What are some of the important the moral, metaphysical, and epistemological consequences which Nietzsche draws from the death of God? What does this even mean for us? In note 343 of The Gay Science, Nietzsche explains “How to understand our cheerfulness” after the death of God. Why is he “cheerful” about this ostensibly most cataclysmic of world historical events? What, in his view, becomes possible for us after the death of God that was not possible for us before? Why does Nietzsche – an atheist – see the “death of God” as such an important event? What can this account teach scientistic atheists? (2) Interpret, analyze, and explain Marx’s concept of alienation in “Estranged Labor”. What is alienation (in general) according to Marx? What is proletarian alienation? What are the proletarian workers alienated from? What are the four aspects or dimensions of estranged labor that Marx emphasizes? What is human nature – our “species-being” – according to Marx and how is it transformed by estranged labor? How does Marx’s analysis of estranged labor fit into his overall critique of free market capitalism? Do you find Marx’s analysis of estranged labor convincing – i.e. is he making an important point about the nature of economic and social exploitation in the capitalist system? What specifically makes a job alienating? Does alienation come in degrees? Is it possible to have a completely non-alienating career within a capitalist society? Why does Marx think that only a revolution followed by socialism will put an end to alienated labor (and alienation in general)? Is he right about this? If not, then how might we put an end to alienated labor or at least minimize it? In “Estranged Labor”, Marx primarily discusses the alienation of the proletariat worker, but he also suggests that the bourgeoisie are alienated (in a different way) by the economic system of capitalism. How might the rich and powerful be alienated? What does this show us about the relationship between exploitation and alienation? How does Marcuse’s account of exploitation in OneDimensional Man relate to that of Marx? How is he critical of Marx? Where do the two converge, were do their accounts differ? (3) Explain Beauvoir’s concept of alterity – “otherness” – in The Second Sex. What does Beauvoir mean when she refers to women as “the Other” and “the second sex”? In The Second Sex Beauvoir says that in patriarchal Western societies men are “subjects” who are more able to achieve transcendence, while women have become “the Other” or “the second sex” and are objectified and confined to immanence (p.27). How have patriarchal Western societies established men as “subjects” and women “objects” according to Beauvoir’s account? What does she mean when she says that women are socially interpreted as “the sex”? What are some of the causes of women’s oppression in her account? How do societal narratives in the West contribute to the oppression of women? How does Beauvoir define human freedom – i.e. what does it mean to be free? Why is freedom more important than “happiness” according to her account? Given Beauvoir’s diagnosis of the problem, what can we do about it? How can we effectively fight for the freedom of women to determine their own lives and have a greater chance of achieving transcendence? How would society have to change in order to end the oppression of women once and for all? How does the concept of alterity help us to understand discrimination and oppression within, and perhaps beyond, feminism? Do you think that Beauvoir’s analysis is still relevant today despite the social and political changes which have occurred in Western societies since she wrote the book? (4) Explain and evaluate Camus’ concept of “revolt” as it is presented in The Myth of Sisyphus. What is the absurd? What are its two constituent elements? What are some examples of the inherent absurdity of human existence? When have you personally encountered the absurd in your own life? What is Camus trying to show us about the human condition by exploring absurdity? How does the question raised by suicide relate to the absurd? Why is suicide not the best possible response to the inherent absurdity of human life according to Camus? What does Camus mean by “revolt”? Why is it the only authentic response to the absurd for Camus? Why does Camus’ reject religious or intellectual leaps of faith as the only possible responses to the absurdity of the human condition? What does the ancient Greek myth of Sisyphus reveal about Camus notion of revolt? Do you think that revolt, in Camus’ sense, is possible to achieve? And if so, do you think that it is the best way to confront the absurdity of life? If not, then how should one live? How should we respond to the absurdity of the human condition? (5) Interpret, explain, and evaluate, Heidegger’s conception of Gestell [Technological Enframing] in “The Question Concerning Technology”. What is technological enframing? How does enframing reveal the world to us? What does Heidegger mean by revealing? What are the salient characteristics of modern technological revealing? How does this mode of revealing differ from other, historical or contemporary, modes of revealing? What does Heidegger mean by “standing-reserve” [Bestand]? What role does modern science play in Heidegger’s account of technicity? What is “the danger” of technological enframing (as a mode of revealing) according to Heidegger? Why is this danger so worrying for Heidegger? What might we loose if technological enframing becomes the only mode of revealing? What does Heidegger see as “the saving power”? Do you think that Heidegger is right to see traces of an alternative mode relating to the world in poiesis – artistic revealing and making? What is it about art that Heidegger is attempting to draw our attention to? Many philosophers, environmentalists, and others who are concerned with the impending ecological crisis facing our planet have seen Heidegger’s notion of technological revealing as a helpful for understanding what caused us to end up in this dire situation. Do you think that Heidegger’s account is relevant to this issue? (6) Explain Marcuse’s conception of “one-dimensionality” as expressed in “The New Forms of Control” from One Dimensional Man. Marcuse claims that modern Western societies are becoming increasingly “one-dimensional” – homogeneous, controlled, and conformist. Why is Marcuse so critical of modern consumer capitalism as an ideology, socio-political system, and way of life? How are individuals controlled in supposedly “free” Western democracies? What are “false needs” and why does Marcuse describe them as “repressive”? What cultivates these false needs within us and how do they keep us chained to the current socio-economic system? What role does consumerism play in his account? What is technological rationality? How does technological rationality reproduce the ideology of the system while defending it from criticism? How might we apply Marcuse’s critique of Western post-industrial capitalism in the 1950s to technoconsumer capitalism in the early 21st Century? Has our situation fundamentally changed? How much of Marcuse’s critique is still applicable today? What parts of his account are still relevant and what parts might have to be revised? (7) Interpret and explain Adorno and Horkheimer’s analysis of “the culture industry” in The Dialectic of Enlightenment. What is “the culture industry” according to Adorno and Horkheimer? What is the sociopolitical function of the culture industry? How does the culture industry homogenize individuals and reproduce the status quo ideology of capitalist business? What is mimesis and how does this compare to real critical thinking? Be sure to explain the concepts of standardization, universalization, and pseudoindividuality as these are essential to their account. (Optional: Use Adorno and Horkheimer’s concepts to critique any aspect of 21st Century popular culture and show how it is a form of social control – i.e. how it reproduces the ideology of consumer capitalism.) (8) Explain Foucault’s concept of “panopticism” as it is presented in Discipline and Punish (pp.195-228). What is “disciplinary power” according to Foucault? How does this form of power differ from traditional “repressive” conceptions of power? What is the technique of disciplinary power Foucault calls “panopticism”? How do panoptic techniques work to normalize deviants? What are the psychological and social effects of panoptic techniques? What kinds of social institutions utilize these panoptic techniques to control, regulate, and normalize their “patients”, “inmates”, “students”, “employees”, etc.? Is Foucault right to see this as one way that power operates in modern societies? Do we see minor forms of panoptic power in our normalizing social judgments of others on an interpersonal level? In other words, do our judgments, even if they are expressed by looks and gazes rather that discursively, have an effect upon the people who are exposed to them? Where else might we find panoptic techniques of power in operation? Some scholars have claimed that Foucault’s concept of panopticism is particularly relevant when it comes to understanding the social and psychological effects of social media on the general public. Do you think that Foucault’s discussion of panopticism can help us to articulate the new forms of social control (and normalization) that occur in contemporary society through our use of social media and other mass communication technologies? If so, why? If not, why not? (9) Critically analyze and evaluate Bostrom’s transhumanist argument for genetic enhancement in “Human Genetic Enhancement: A Transhumanist Perspective”. What is transhumanism according to Bostrom? What are some of the core attitudes, perspectives, and values which are characteristic of transhumanism? Why do transhumanists seek to become post-human? What kinds of benefits do transhumanists seek gain by virtue of technological or genetic enhancement? What is human germ-line genetic engineering? What is a ‘designer baby’? What is Bostrom’s argument for the “responsible” use of genetic enhancement technologies? What is the difference between the genetic enhancement that Bostrom advocates and the practice of correcting of genetic defects or deleterious abnormities? What are some of the moral, social, and political problems raised by the potential use of genetic engineering for the purpose of transhumanist enhancement? What would the “correction” of supposed defects entail for people who currently have disabilities and are fighting for their rights? What are some of the potential negative consequences of genetic enhancement? What are the potential positive benefits of genetic enhancement? How does Bostrom attempt to counter some of the objections which have been raised against the idea of genetic enhancement? Do you think that Bostrom’s arguments are convincing? Do you support the use of genetic enhancement technologies for the purposes of enhancement? Would you genetically modify your children. Argue your case. (10) Compare Heidegger’s account of technological enframing in “The Question Concerning Technology” with Bostrom’s transhumanist account of genetic enhancement in “Human Genetic Enhancement: A Transhumanist Perspective”. In “The Question Concerning Technology” Heidegger claims that the greatest danger that modern technicity poses to the human being is that we will transform ourselves and each other into a “standing reserve” [Bestand] – a malleable resource to be used. In “Human Genetic Enhancement: A Transhumanist Perspective” Bostrom advocates the responsible use of genetic enhancement technologies not merely to ameliorate the worst aspects of the human condition, but to enhance our abilities. It seems evident that Heidegger would not be an advocate of transhumanism (in general) and would have seen the use of the kind of genetic enhancement technologies advocated by Bostrom and other transhumanists as a deleterious manifestation of modern technological enframing. Who, if anyone, do you think is right about technological interventions into human nature? Heidegger or Bostrom? Humanism or transhumanism? Support your position with original arguments derived from the positions presented in these two texts. (11) Guided by the goal of Frankfurt School Critical Theory, develop your own critique of 21st Century American society using ideas discussed in any of the texts we have read together this semester. Horkheimer, a prominent member of the Frankfurt School, defined the goal of critical theory as an attempt “to liberate human beings from the circumstances that enslave them” (Horkheimer 1982, p.244). With this goal in mind, attempt to offer a critique of contemporary Western society which draws from any of the texts we have read and discussed together. What social practices, norms, institutions, etc., serve to oppress, manipulate, and/or control the thoughts, behaviors, and activities of individuals in the 21st Century? Since this is such a broad topic, I would suggest that you narrow your focus to a few specific areas of society or try to relate your thesis to a specific set of issues. In order to do well, you must use ideas from at least three texts discussed in our course, namely: Plato’s ‘Allegory of the Cave’ in Republic; Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics; Machiavelli’s The Prince; Descartes’ Meditations; and/or Hume’s An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding; Nietzsche’s The Gay Science, Marx’s “Estranged Labor”; Beauvoir’s The Second Sex; Camus’ The Myth of Sisyphus; Heidegger’s “The Question Concerning Technology”; Marcuse’s One Dimensional Man; Foucault’s Discipline and Punish; Butler’s “Performative Acts and Gender Constitution”; Appiah’s “Illusions of Race”, or Bostrom’s “Human Genetic Enhancements: A Transhumanist Perspective”.
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Hey I am done with the assignment. I have answered question 6 of which I have written seven and a half pages. There are no grammar errors and the there is zero percent plagiarism.I really appreciate the deadline extension you gave me. It was a great pleasure working with you😃 . If you have any queries please feel free to contact me.

Name1
First Last Name
Course
Instructor’s Name
Date
Marcuse’s conception of “one-dimensionality”
Herbert Marcuse, a German philosopher, wrote on the concept of one-dimensional man in 1964.
In his writing, he evaluated the capitalist and communist way of life in which he reported that
there was a rise in social repression. The repression that Marcuse talks about is that of new ideas,
values, and aspirations of the people. He argued that there was a decline in the rise of
revolutionary potential in the West as people were deeply engrossed in the capitalistic form of
life that put self-need first. The decline in the revolutionary potential has led to no opposition
against the way of life and the lack of well-structured critique that is necessary for human
advancement. In his conception, Herbert analyses the main problem that is affecting our
civilization and its effects. One-dimensional man is a vital work analyzing critical theory and the
trends in contemporary industrial culture. It also covers the aspect of alienation and technological
rationality.
Marcuse postulates that there are new forms of control unlike those in the past. He argues that
currently the territorial system is not what is used to control people. The rise of democracy has
not given people the freedom they anticipated. However, democracy has become some form of
authoritarian rule whereby the people are hoodwinked that they wield power. Ideally, democracy
is supposed to be a form of government in which the people have a say in what goes on in a state.

Name2
However, what happens, in reality, is contrary to this. The people are convinced that their
suggestions are important and that their vote counts. In a democracy, the people shift power to a
select few individuals who at most times make decisions that favor the minority who are either
wealthy or in power (Marcuse 7). The minority employ various tactics via which the control the
majority.
Furthermore, Marcuse delineates consumerism as another new form of control that propagates
one-dimensionality. He argues that consumerism makes the people forget the key problems they
face in life. It makes them focused on achieving some economic goals and thus abandon the duty
of putting the leadership in check. It also makes everyone focused on their own needs and adopt
a one-dimensional mindset that at the end contributes to the new form of control.
Moreover, Marcuse claims that modern Western societies are becoming increasingly “onedimensional,” that is, more homogeneous, controlled, and conformist. He argues that the...


Anonymous
I was struggling with this subject, and this helped me a ton!

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Related Tags