>Philosophy homework help

Post a total of 3 substantive responses over 2 separate days for full participation. This includes your initial post and 2 replies to other students.
Due Day 3
Expertise doesn’t transfer automatically from one field to another: Being an expert in one area does not automatically qualify a person as an expert (or even as competent) in other areas. Is it the same with dishonesty? Many people think dishonesty does transfer, that being dishonest in one area automatically discredits that person in all areas. For example, when Bill Clinton lied about having sexual encounters with his intern, some said he couldn’t be trusted about anything.
Respond to the following in a minimum of 175 words:

  • If someone is known to have been dishonest about one thing, should we automatically be suspicious of his or her honesty regarding other things?

Philosophy homework help

Post a total of 3 substantive responses over 2 separate days for full participation. This includes your initial post and 2 replies to other students.
Due Day 3
Expertise doesn’t transfer automatically from one field to another: Being an expert in one area does not automatically qualify a person as an expert (or even as competent) in other areas. Is it the same with dishonesty? Many people think dishonesty does transfer, that being dishonest in one area automatically discredits that person in all areas. For example, when Bill Clinton lied about having sexual encounters with his intern, some said he couldn’t be trusted about anything.
Respond to the following in a minimum of 175 words:

  • If someone is known to have been dishonest about one thing, should we automatically be suspicious of his or her honesty regarding other things?

Philosophy homework help

The film for this unit is No Country for Old Men. Please watch the film and post a reflection (aim for around 500 words) to our forum.
You should be able to access the film from the CSUSM library by using this link: https://digitalcampus.swankmp.net/csusm360524/watch?token=8AA2E33D24A1F633
You can either address the open ended the film critique prompt:
A brief overview of the reading(s):What is the central philosophical issue or theme? What were the primary topics of discussion?  What interesting questions were raised?  What conclusions, if any, were reached?
A synopsis of the film How does the film relate to the reading(s) under consideration? How did the main philosophical points or ideas manifest in the film?
An evaluation of the philosophical success of the film Did the film adequately treat the philosophical topic? Why or why not?
OR if you would rather a guided prompt, here are a couple of specific questions you can answer:
A. Chigurh claims: “well I got here the same way that the old coin did.” Do you agree? Why or why not?
B. Consider the dialogue below in light of Hume or Sartre’s philosophy:

Philosophy homework help

The film for this unit is Doubt. Please watch the film and post a reflection (aim for around 500 words) to our forum.
You can either address the open ended the film critique prompt:
A brief overview of the reading(s):What is the central philosophical issue or theme? What were the primary topics of discussion?  What interesting questions were raised?  What conclusions, if any, were reached?
A synopsis of the film How does the film relate to the reading(s) under consideration? How did the main philosophical points or ideas manifest in the film?
An evaluation of the philosophical success of the film Did the film adequately treat the philosophical topic? Why or why not?
OR if you would rather a guided prompt, here are a couple of specific questions you can answer:
A.Father Flynn remarks in his opening monologue, “Doubt can be a bond as powerful and sustaining as certainty. When you are lost, you are not alone.” Do you think that Anselm would agree? What about Kierkegaard?  Why or why not?
B John Patrick Shanley in his Preface to the play that the film is based on writes: “You may come out of my play uncertain. You may want to be sure. Look down on that feeling.” What might the philosophers from this unit (Anselm, Pasley, Pascal, or Kierkegaard) say in response? Would they agree or disagree? Why?Secondary Posts: Please be sure to respond to two colleagues’ posts. You can note a point of agreement, a point of disagreement, or further the conversation by asking a question.