Make an Argument and Back it up: A philosophy assignment

That the Universe is actually God and religion obscured the definition through corruption.
You could even claim some absurdity and say that the universe is a living organism of proportions unimaginable.

Think big pimpin.

 

Are you seriously needing help with this?

I posit that I have been assigned to write a paper in which I am instructed to make an argument and back it up. As proof, I am attaching a copy of the original assignment handout. (I assumed the assignment came on a piece of paper, if not you'd have to get slightly more creative.)

Did I misunderstand the goal?

 

the inherent state of man.

Or we born evil with the capacity for good? or born good with capacities for evil? Or neutral bred by influence and nurture factors?

 

Say you're gay, and then when the professor asks for proof pull down his pants and start doing gay stuff

 

heres one, explain the conflict between the satisfaction of doing your own work versus getting handed the answers and learning nothing.

 

Wouldn't you have to bring someone to class whose pants you'd also have to pull down?

Oh, wait, I misread. You're saying rape the professor. Great idea, if you want to get committed. Perhaps after you are expelled, you can then go shoot at the government.

 

make the argument that philosophy gives us no answers but only more questions.


Make the argument that our government has been led astray

Make the argument that the mayans had it right and we are all going to experience some wicked shit come 2012. Whether the evidence points to the end of existence? or the beginning of a new one?


Argue the fact that horsepower is a very misleading terms leading to people thinking that there are miniature horses in their engine.


Orrrr how about the argument to ban bats for the sake of saving lives since they are used in crime all over the place...

 

humans are destroying the planet.

easy as pie is what it is

 

make an arguement why the assignment is bullshit and back it up, if you can do it, ur prof will definently like it

 

even better.


Do the unexpected.

 

how about that government is no better than organized crime. just government is so big that it cant be challenged.

think about it, dont pay your taxes, they send cops to make your life a living hell. dont pay your mob extortion, they send goons to make your life a living hell.

oppose the government, they silence you. oppose the mob, they wack you.

speek your mind against the government, your a traitor. speek your mind against the mob, your a snitch.

 

Argue for empiricism. Start w/ the whole tabula rasa thing, then do whatever you can to minimize the notion of synthetic a priori truth.

Say things like, "some might say that a newborn child, who has no experience of anything, still knows that two objects in the room in front of him are distinct, and knowledge of the nature of distinction comes before experience, therefore empirical knowledge is not the only knowledge, there is some knowledge that is innate".

Then reply to this hypothetical by saying something like, "once the baby opens his eyes, he experiences the two objects and that's how he understands they are not the same, his ability to distinguish comes after the experience of two objects in different locations in space or time, therefore the doctrine of tabula rasa is true, and empirical knowledge is all there is".

This could be really fun. How long till you have to turn this in?

 

What makes something a good act instead of a bad one. Whats morality?

You could just do the obvious one, whether God/gods exist.

Do humans actually have free will?

Whether extra-terrestrials exist?

How do we obtain knowledge and how much can we obtain?
What is knowledge?

 

As each day passes by, do we live more or die more? Is it that we begin as who we are and slowly perish over the decades, or is it that we begin from nothing and slowly become who we are over the same period? If we perish, is our destiny to become nothing? If we grow, is our destiny to become everything? Is it a fallacy to suggest we do only one or the other?