A 4-6 page paper, double-spaced, 12-point Times New Roman font (this will generate a minimum of 88 lines in a 4-page paper; the penalty is 2 points per every line short). NO first person references. You must include at least 5 works cited; one of the sources should come from either of your two textbooks by Mitchell. I require a title but not a title page; I do require that you properly cite your sources.

OR

A 15-20 minute one-on-one conversational presentation with the instructor.

Choose a philosopher. Discuss the basic philosophy of a philosopher you feel confident you have understood and have an interest in exploring further. Narrow your focus to an area of philosophy discussed throughout the semester – Metaphysics, Epistemology, or Axiology. Describe the origins of this philosophy by comparing/contrasting it to the thinking of another philosopher or school of thought.

Choose from the following list (you may choose someone not on this list, but it must be approved by the instructor in advance):

Anaximander

Anselm

Aquinas

Augustine

Bentham

Berkeley

de Beauvoir

Descartes Epicurus 

Gilman

Hegel Heidegger

Heraclitus

Hobbes

Hume

Hypatia

James Kant 

Kierkegaard

Leibniz Locke

Mill (Harriet T.) Mill (John S.)  Nietzsche 

Rousseau

Sartre

Spinoza

Schelling

Schopenhauer  Spinoza

Thales Wittgenstein

Wollstonecraft 

Xenophanes

Consider the following questions in your paper or presentation:

· What is this person’s philosophy? (Concentrate on a particular area of their philosophy to narrow your approach)

· Does this philosophy present a reaction to or an attack upon another philosopher or school of thought?

· Why is your chosen philosopher more convincing than the philosophy it is reacting to or attacking?

Have a clear thesis/idea that considers the above questions. See samples below:

· Kant was correct in criticizing Hume’s radical skepticism; little can be known about the world, but there can be an understanding of and about the self in relation to the world.

· Berkeley’s radical position that the world inside your head is the only world we can know, trumps Locke’s untenable argument of a world of knowable objects existing apart from oneself.

· While Bentham’s Utilitarianism was groundbreaking, John Stuart Mill should be credited for making it a viable ethical philosophy.

Post a Pin that relates to the topics covered this week and write why you chose this item. A Pin can be a link to a video or article that you found on the web. 

My topic:Strategic Games (A Nash equilibrium is a pair of strategies, one for each player, in which each strategy is a best response against the other).

 

When players act rationally, optimally, and in their own self-interest, it’s possible to compute the likely outcomes (equilibria) of games. By studying games, we learn not only where our strategies are likely to take us, but also how to modify the rules of the game to our own advantage. 

Equilibria of sequential games, where players take turns moving, are influenced by who moves first (a potential first-mover advantage, or disadvantage), and who can commit to a future course of action. Credible commitments are difficult to make because they require that players threaten to act in an unprofitable way—against their self-interest.

Remarks:  The response must be detailed and answer the primary question and subpart of the primary question.  Write clearly, concisely, use proper grammar and writing mechanics. You must use APA format and cite (2) references.