index-52710.html

below is the requirement and an examplethe paper needs to be one and half pages so that would be no more the 400-450 words. All section need to be equal in length.
Example and requirement

The format below is to be followed for each paper. You can also find a sample paper below written as a protocol to another Unit reading assignment — The Value of Philosophy. You do not submit a protocol paper on that reading.You can refer always back to this Unit if you have questions about this assignment.

</o:p>

Protocol for Response toReadings</o:p>

</o:p>

</o:p>

Use the following protocol in preparing response papers to assigned readings. Each heading should be listed to indicate which part of the protocol you are following. (Example: Write “RECALL,” and then list your recollections. In the next paragraph write “SUMMARY,” etc.)</o:p>

</o:p>

</o:p>

RECALL: Simply list what you consider to be the main points in the reading. Try to list at leastfour or fivemain points.</o:p>

</o:p>

SUMMARY: Using the main points, which you have recalled, write a brief summary of the assigned article.</o:p>

</o:p>

QUESTIONS: List the questions that you have after reading the chapter/article. Are there particular things that you didn’t understand? What other questions are raised for you? (Notice the plural, meaning your response should include several questions.)</o:p>

</o:p>

QUOTES: Directly quote from the chapter/article. Which quotations really took your attention? Which quotations perplexed you? Which quotations did you particularly like or dislike? Agree with or disagree with?</o:p>

</o:p>

CONNECT: In what way can you connect this article to your own life experience? How do you connect it with other aspects of your college work? How does it connect to the other parts of this course?</o:p>

</o:p>

COMMENT: Write evaluative comments about the article. Was it good? Why? Was it not so good? Why?Provide any specific points or parts that you liked or disliked. Say why you liked or disliked them.

Example

Below is a Protocol Paper prepared over the required reading, “The Value of Philosophy,” by Bertrand Russell. This sample paper demonstrates how your protocol papers should look and the degree of development expected for each section of the protocol. You will use this as a guide for all protocol papers submitted throughout the course.

NOTEthat the paper uses 12-point, Times New Roman, is single-spaced (not 1.15) with double-spacing only between sections, 1″ margins, and is in prose (versus list) form. Papers must be in this form to be graded.

Protocol Paper

” The Value of Philosophy”

</o:p>

Recall:In the “Value of Philosophy,” Russell makes several important points: 1) He suggests that many “practical” people view philosophy as rather useless, because these people are–according to Russell–operating both with wrong conceptions about the ends of life and wrong conceptions about what goods philosophy strives to achieve; 2)The value in philosophy is in what it does for the person who studies it; 3) He makes the point that goods of the mind are as important in life as goods of the body; 4) The main value of philosophy is that it enlarges one’s thoughts, brings one into union with the “not-Self, and helps us avoid being caught in narrowness as human beings; and, 5) The main idea is thatPhilosophy is to be studied to enrich our intellects, diminish our dogmatism, and make us citizens of the universe.

 

Summary:In the essay, “The Value of Philosophy,”< /span> Bertrand Russell presents the study of philosophy as a valuable undertaking, even though it does not directly help the whole world or increase one’s material wealth. The value is to be found for the student of philosophy herself or himself. This value is primarily found in the intellectual development that is available for those who undertake the study philosophy. They can escape narrowness, dogmatism, and narrowness as they become citizens of the world, with enriched intellectual capacities.

 

Quotes: “The man who has no tincture of philosophy goes through life imprisoned in the prejudices derived from common sense, from the habitual beliefs of his age or his nation, and from convictions which have grown up in his mind without the co-operation or consent of his deliberate reason.””. . .it removes the somewhat arrogant dogmatism of those who have never traveled into the region of liberating doubt, and it keeps alive our sense of wonder by showing familiar things in an unfamiliar aspect.” “Philosophic contemplation does not, in its widest survey, divide the universe into two hostile camps — friends and foes, helpful and hostile, good and bad — it views the whole impartially.” “. . . greatness of soul is not fostered by those philosophies which assimilate the universe to Man.”

 

Questions: How does Russell justify the claim that the widespread view that “man is the measure of all things” and that truth is man-made is incorrect?How is his idea that truth is not man-made fit with his avowed atheism? If Russell believes that it is better to be citizens of the universe and “not only of one walled city at war with all the rest,” then what would he say about loyalty to country or kind?Would Russell believe that there is a human attitude that is more lacking in human pride than the union of ” Self and not-Self?

 

Connect: I can certainly connect this reading to my own life, because all of my adult life I have been engaged in doing philosophy. I think that the value that Russell sees in philosophy has been born out in my own life. On the other hand, it can be also sometimes a little frustrating to see that so many people seem to believe that “getting and spending” is the most important thing in the universe. I think studying philosophy and opening up the mind requires that one be prepared and learn to cope with the dogmatism that one will invariably have to confront. I can connect this reading to the attitude of Socrates displayed in the Apology – more interested in excellence of the soul than in pursuing wealth, fame, prestige, etc.

 

Comment:I liked this article. I thought it was very thought-provoking. It helps one to understand why anyone should be interested in studying questions that have no definite answers. I thought Russell’s writing and chain of reasoning was easy to follow. I did, however, think it was a little confusing to have this summary without having read the previous things he refers to. I would have liked also for Russell to be a little more specific about what he specifically means by “Not-Self” and “citizen of the universe.”I particularly liked the image of those who are afraid of philosophy and stuck in their own “set of prejudices, habits, and desires” as being likethe man who never leaves the family circle for fear his word might not be law.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Order Now

Top