In this assignment, you are expected to show signs of having read the ‘underlyin

In this assignment, you are expected to show signs of having read the ‘underlying assumptions shared by ancient and medieval thinkers,’ the annotated excerpts from the Apology and the “Takeaways for this Course” at the end of the annotated excerpts from the Apology
15 pts–# of posts (3 required: one initial post plus 2 replies)
10 pts.– thought development (focused and easy to follow) and writing (spells words correctly, uses correct punctuation, capitalizes what needs to be capitalized)
25 pts–quality of participation replies
50 pts. — quality of the initial post (independently thoughtful about what was read for the week and nothing plagiarized)
What to write about: (Choose only two of the three clusters of questions below and label your choices: My answer to Question #1 or Question #2 or Question #3)
1) Using only the resources provided in this week’s module, respond thoughtfully to Socrates’s proposal the ‘care of the soul’ is and should be of paramount importance to us. Your response should include what it means for him. He said this is more important than money, honor, and pleasure. Do you agree with that– partially or wholly? Why or why not? (Be convincing about what you say! How might Socrates see American society today?
2) Using only the resources provided in this week’s module, respond thoughtfully to the idea that objective ‘truth’ is possible and desirable, which is why Socrates pursues it tirelessly. He wanted true definitions of the virtues as against the Sophists who only cared about making any possible opinion win. Do you agree that truth (especially in the realm of moral right and wrong) cannot just be a matter of opinion (whether cultural, individual, traditional, conventional or just popular/media-influenced)? Apply it to what happened on January 6, 2021 at the US Capitol Building in the nation’s capital. Were there clear facts/objective truths then or none at all? Were there objective rights and wrongs then?
3) Socrates believed in something he does not attempt to prove but is so important that he enabled him to face his unjust and untimely death calmly. This is the belief in a religious-moral cosmos. Does this unproved belief make sense? Why or why not? (Note: you are not allowed to say it does not make sense because he cannot prove it.) How does the belief affect our common understanding that there is/can still be a clear difference, for example, between ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ or ‘just’ and unjust’ or ‘love’ and ‘hate’?
***Remember that in philosophy, your thinking process is what matters more than your position. Always try to give convincing reasons for your agreement or disagreement (whether that is total or partial. Engage as fully as you can. )