Category: Philosophy

I have provided the assignment below.
PLEASE CITE THROUGHOUT THE PAPER
I HAVE PROVIDED THE READING THAT YOU NEED TO USE 100 WORDS FROM (read the assingment below to understand).
if you look at any website, journal, article and use the ideas from there please cite it.

Compare Descartes and Hume on what can be known and how it can be known. In area after area, Hume is busy trying to convince us of the limitations of reason. Discuss how he goes about this with regard to causality, God, and morality.

Midterm Phil5 is the essay to rewrite. I need this to be reworded to be more like a philosophy paper following the philosophy essay structure below. Please look at the prezi attached as well for a reference to the structure. 
1. Immediately after Socrates’ leaky jar analogy, Socrates and Callicles disagree
over what makes a person’s life good. Present at least two of Socrates’ arguments
against Callicles’ position, being sure to carefully formulate them and situate your
reconstruction with reference to the text. Give reasons why you think each argument
does or does not succeed. Pose and answer potential objections.
This is the prompt of the essay. 
I would like to have it be more clear and opinionated. Also please remove the second source on this essay and only cite plato Gorgias and the lecture slides attached below. 
https://prezi.com/z4h1_fwilbxj/a-sample-philosophy-paper/

Content of your paper:
Imagine that you could ensure everyone on Earth learned about one of the topics in this class. What topic would you choose, and who would you want to learn about this topic?
Unfortunately, no one has the power to ensure everyone learns anything. But we all have the power to make arguments about what we think others should learn. That’s what you’ll be doing in this paper-trying to convince an authority figure why your topic should be learned by others beyond this class. 
This will be an argumentative paper, where:
The argument is appropriately targeted: Your audience is the authority figure in charge of the people you’d want to learn about this topic. Feel free to be creative here-if you want everyone on Earth to learn about your topic, write to the President of Planet Earth. If you want all kids in elementary school to learn about this topic, write to the Board of Global Elementary Education, etc.
The topic is accurately/clearly described and outlined in your own words: You have identified a topic clearly, described the relevant philosophical questions connected to the topic, cited the particular authors that you would want to be taught, and analyzed how they differ in answering the relevant philosophical questions.
The impact that learning this topic would have on our world is convincingly described: While you are certainly welcome to argue that everyone on Earth should learn about your topic, you are also welcome to focus on one part of the population that you think should learn about this topic (e.g., “future scientists,” “everyone on Earth,” “kids in elementary school,” “future psychologists”–whoever!). Once you’ve identified the population that you want to focus on, you should then convincingly describe why this population should learn about your topic. In other words, how would this impact our world for the better? Would it improve scientific practice? Would it positively affect the people who learn about your topic?
You convey to your audience what you think the value of philosophy of science is: In this section, you may refer to any of the Learning Materials or any other sources you’d like, but there should be original argumentation offered here. 
You propose one recommendation related to educating others about your topic (and perhaps bridging a gap between philosophy and science): You may refer to the recommendations listed in the Laplane et al. article, but your recommendation should an be original one. Then, defend that recommendation. Do you think it will ensure the positive impacts you described above if it is implemented? Does it fall short of having those impacts?
Editing and revising your paper: 
Your paper must be written in Standard English, in a professional tone. The paper should be free from spelling and grammatical errors, and points may be deducted for a significant number of these errors. 
I am not looking for a summary of the texts we’ve explored or a summary of literature beyond what you have engaged with in this class. However, in your paper, you should be critically engaging with multiple learning materials from our class. 
I expect in-text citations throughout the paper and a bibliography at the end. Remember that citations aren’t just for direct quotes. If you’ve just articulated someone’s position, explained an example they use, etc., you should include a citation. I don’t care which format style you use (APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.), just pick one and be consistent.
Formatting:
Font size: 10-12
Font: Something legible
Spacing: Double-spaced
Citations: In-text citations & bibliography
Length: 650-800 words (850 is the word limit)
Plagiarism Policy: This paper will be submitted to TurnItIn and remember that any work produced by ChatGPT should be included in the bibliography. If you have any questions about this policy, please email me/refer to the syllabus.