Option 1: Free Will
If you choose this option, you must discuss what the notion of free will is and what the notion of
determinism is. You must then choose two of the main theories within the compatibilism / noncompatibilism debate â which you should also address – and compare and contrast them.
Option 2: Personhood Over Time
To investigate how you know that you are the same person over time, there are really two questions that need
to be addressed: (1) What is a person or a self and (2) How do you know that you are the same person over
time. We focused the discussion on John Locke and Thomas Reidâs objections to Lockeâs criterion. If you
choose this essay question, you must outline Lockeâs answers to both of these questions. Second, you must
address Thomas Reidâs objection to Lockeâs answers.
Option 3: The relationship between the mind and the body
If you choose this final option, you need to address the different approaches to the mind/body problem. You
need to address the following topics (but not necessarily in the following order):
Choice (1): substance dualism (Descartes) and the difference between a mental fact and a physical fact. You
will also need to address Descartesâ argument for the existence of an immaterial substance called soul/mind
(what was it called â you can just summarize this. You do not need to list out the full argument). Lastly,
what are some of the issues that substance dualism faces?
Choice (2): Physicalism/Materialism presents a different theory of mind. What is that theory? How is it
different from substance dualism? How does it address the issues that dualism faces? What are the different
forms of the physicalist theory? Are there any issues that the physicalist faces (the qualia problem perhaps)?
Option 5: Arguments for the existence of God
The distinction between the Ontological Argument (either Descartes or Anselmâs version) and the
cosmological argument (first cause argument). What does each theory state? What are the basic
epistemological principles that each theory is based on. Who are the notable proponents of each that we
addressed in class. What are some basic objections to the theories
Sample Solution
The investigate of sexual contrast, at that point, and the scrutinize of portrayal are inseparably connected, being as they are the two endeavors at testing customary pioneer and phallocentric methods of reasoning. Each can be seen as a methodology that looks to beat not just explicit regions (sexual orientation imbalance, solid methods of portrayal and so forth) yet the routine that gives their ground. Every endeavor to do this through a progression of basic re-framings and hypothetical positions that reveal the natural irregularities and inward gaps in the predominant talk. Roland Barthes’ work Camera Lucida (2000) is a perfect case of how such thoughts can be converted into abstract and photographic hypothesis. In his idea of the punctum, for example, Barthes subtleties how time, conclusion and individual intrigue can adjust our gathering of a photo a long ways past the goals of either the picture taker or the photographic model. The punctum, or as Barthes subtleties “a halfway article” (Barthes, 2000: 43) is what exists outside of the standardized perspective on what is representable in a photo, it omits direct visual acknowledgment and changes with every watcher and survey; Barthes portrays his experience of a photo by William Klein from 1954 of neediness stricken youngsters in New York’s Little Italy for example, regardless of the obviously socio-political message of the photo (a grown-up hand holding a weapon to a grinning kid’s head) what could be considered the customary authentic, judicious importance, Barthes can not help but rather “determinedly observe one kid’s awful teeth” (Barthes, 2000: 45). In his idea of the “third significance”, likewise from his paper of a similar name, Barthes focuses to the unexpected and some of the time funny incidental components of a photo or a still picture of a film, what he calls the inhumane importance, talking about a still from Romm’s Ordinary Fascism, he says: I can undoubtedly peruse (in this still) an undeniable significance, that of dictatorship (feel and symbolics of intensity, the dramatic chase), however I can likewise peruse an inhumane importance: the (once more) masked fair absurdity of the youthful quiver-conveyor, the obesity of his hands and mouth⦠Goering’s thick nails, his trashy ring⦠For Barthes at that point, what was not expected to be spoken to â the inalienable phallic insecurity of the Nazi party â can be observed in photography, not in the components that structure the focal point of the image (the ‘studium’) however those at the fringe that omit the discerning and considered look. As Shawcross (1997) subtleties, Barthes’ thoughts here mirror the longing to challenge the sorts of talks we have taken a gander at above, it focuses on the significance of various readings when managing photographic pictures and furthermore endeavors to challenge customary (Western phallocentric) ideas of single point viewpoint.>
The investigate of sexual contrast, at that point, and the scrutinize of portrayal are inseparably connected, being as they are the two endeavors at testing customary pioneer and phallocentric methods of reasoning. Each can be seen as a methodology that looks to beat not just explicit regions (sexual orientation imbalance, solid methods of portrayal and so forth) yet the routine that gives their ground. Every endeavor to do this through a progression of basic re-framings and hypothetical positions that reveal the natural irregularities and inward gaps in the predominant talk. Roland Barthes’ work Camera Lucida (2000) is a perfect case of how such thoughts can be converted into abstract and photographic hypothesis. In his idea of the punctum, for example, Barthes subtleties how time, conclusion and individual intrigue can adjust our gathering of a photo a long ways past the goals of either the picture taker or the photographic model. The punctum, or as Barthes subtleties “a halfway article” (Barthes, 2000: 43) is what exists outside of the standardized perspective on what is representable in a photo, it omits direct visual acknowledgment and changes with every watcher and survey; Barthes portrays his experience of a photo by William Klein from 1954 of neediness stricken youngsters in New York’s Little Italy for example, regardless of the obviously socio-political message of the photo (a grown-up hand holding a weapon to a grinning kid’s head) what could be considered the customary authentic, judicious importance, Barthes can not help but rather “determinedly observe one kid’s awful teeth” (Barthes, 2000: 45). In his idea of the “third significance”, likewise from his paper of a similar name, Barthes focuses to the unexpected and some of the time funny incidental components of a photo or a still picture of a film, what he calls the inhumane importance, talking about a still from Romm’s Ordinary Fascism, he says: I can undoubtedly peruse (in this still) an undeniable significance, that of dictatorship (feel and symbolics of intensity, the dramatic chase), however I can likewise peruse an inhumane importance: the (once more) masked fair absurdity of the youthful quiver-conveyor, the obesity of his hands and mouth⦠Goering’s thick nails, his trashy ring⦠For Barthes at that point, what was not expected to be spoken to â the inalienable phallic insecurity of the Nazi party â can be observed in photography, not in the components that structure the focal point of the image (the ‘studium’) however those at the fringe that omit the discerning and considered look. As Shawcross (1997) subtleties, Barthes’ thoughts here mirror the longing to challenge the sorts of talks we have taken a gander at above, it focuses on the significance of various readings when managing photographic pictures and furthermore endeavors to challenge customary (Western phallocentric) ideas of single point viewpoint.>
