“What is Philosophy?” by Walter Sinnott-Armstrong Well, what do you think philosophy is? Most people can’t answer this question. It’s too abstract. It’s also controversial. Philosophers themselves can’t agree on any answer. Sure, the name “philosophy” derives from the Greek for “love of wisdom”, but what’s that? There has been a long and glorious history of people called philosophers, but they talk about all kinds of topics in all kinds of ways. It is not clear what, if anything, they have in common that makes them all philosophers. Still, though many philosophers would dispute what I say, I will give you one model of philosophy. For me, philosophy is defined by a goal and a method. Philosophy’s goal is nothing less than a systematic world view. Other fields study particular kinds of things. Philosophy asks how it all fits together. For example, if you want to learn about bodies, take a course in physics or biology. If you want to learn about minds, take a course in psychology. But if you want to learn about how minds are related to bodies, or how physics is related to psychology, then philosophy (of mind) is for you. Similarly, economics, political science, and art and music courses study different values (welfare, justice, and beauty). Then moral philosophers ask how these values are similar or different, when one may be traded off against another, and where any of these values fit into the physical world. Again, historians try to discover knowledge of the past and astronomers try to discover knowledge of stars and planets, but only philosophers ask what makes any of these beliefs knowledge, and how (or whether) we can have any knowledge at all. Such philosophical questions are very abstract, but that is what enables them to cover so many different fields at once. This goal also means that you can study anything under the name of philosophy. Philosophy encompasses subfields called philosophy of religion, of law, of economics, of biology, of physics, of mathematics, of computers, of psychology, of art, of music, of literature, and so on. Any and all of these topics can be studied in a philosophical way when one asks how they are related to each other in an overall world view. When such disparate topics are raised, conflicts and paradoxes are bound to arise. One famous example is the paradox of freedom: Science, including psychology, leads us to believe that (1) Every act is determined by a prior cause. Law and common practices of blaming and punishing wrongdoers then lead us to believe that (2) Some acts are free. But the very definition of “free” suggests that (3) Nothing that is determined is free. Unfortunately, (1)-(3) cannot all be true, so any world view that includes all three of these claims is incoherent. Paradoxes like this are both loved and hated by philosophers. Philosophers love them for their stimulation but hate them for their incoherence, so philosophers try hard to get rid of paradoxes. One prevalent way to resolve paradox.

1. “What is Philosophy?” by Walter Sinnott-Armstrong
Well, what do you think philosophy is? Most people can’t
answer this question. It’s too abstract. It’s also controversial.
Philosophers themselves can’t agree on any answer. Sure, the
name “philosophy” derives from the Greek for “love of
wisdom”, but what’s that? There has been a long and glorious
history of people called philosophers, but they talk about all
kinds of topics in all kinds of ways. It is not clear what, if
anything, they have in common that makes them all
philosophers.
Still, though many philosophers would dispute what I say, I will
give you one model of philosophy. For me, philosophy is
defined by a goal and a method.
Philosophy’s goal is nothing less than a systematic world view.
Other fields study particular kinds of things. Philosophy asks
how it all fits together. For example, if you want to learn about
bodies, take a course in physics or biology. If you want to learn
about minds, take a course in psychology. But if you want to
learn about how minds are related to bodies, or how physics is
related to psychology, then philosophy (of mind) is for you.
Similarly, economics, political science, and art and music
courses study different values (welfare, justice, and beauty).
Then moral philosophers ask how these values are similar or
different, when one may be traded off against another, and
where any of these values fit into the physical world. Again,
historians try to discover knowledge of the past and astronomers
try to discover knowledge of stars and planets, but only
philosophers ask what makes any of these beliefs knowledge,
and how (or whether) we can have any knowledge at all. Such
philosophical questions are very abstract, but that is what
enables them to cover so many different fields at once.
This goal also means that you can study anything under the
name of philosophy. Philosophy encompasses subfields called

2. philosophy of religion, of law, of economics, of biology, of
physics, of mathematics, of computers, of psychology, of art, of
music, of literature, and so on. Any and all of these topics can
be studied in a philosophical way when one asks how they are
related to each other in an overall world view.
When such disparate topics are raised, conflicts and paradoxes
are bound to arise. One famous example is the paradox of
freedom: Science, including psychology, leads us to believe that
(1) Every act is determined by a prior cause. Law and common
practices of blaming and punishing wrongdoers then lead us to
believe that (2) Some acts are free. But the very definition of
“free” suggests that (3) Nothing that is determined is free.
Unfortunately, (1)-(3) cannot all be true, so any world view that
includes all three of these claims is incoherent.
Paradoxes like this are both loved and hated by philosophers.
Philosophers love them for their stimulation but hate them for
their incoherence, so philosophers try hard to get rid of
paradoxes. One prevalent way to resolve paradoxes is
conceptual analysis. In response to the paradox of freedom, for
example, some philosophers try to analyze freedom in a way
that makes it compatible with determinism and thereby
undermines (3). Other philosophers give accounts of blame and
punishment that do not presuppose freedom, so they can reject
(2). Still others analyze determinism and causation in ways that
cast doubt on (1). One of these claims has to go. Conceptual
analysis tries to help us decide which claim to give up.
The method of conceptual analysis might sometimes seem
picky, but unclarity or imprecision in our concepts is often what
leads us into paradoxes and incoherence in our world views.
That is why the philosophical goal of a coherent overall world
view makes philosophers adopt the method of conceptual
analysis.
Philosophers use other methods as well. Many philosophers
employ empirical discoveries in psychology, biology, and
physics to illuminate traditional philosophical issues. (Can our
moral beliefs be understood as a product of evolution?) Others

3. use formal developments in logic and mathematics. (Does the
incompleteness of arithmetic, proven by Gödel, show that
computers cannot think in the way humans do?) Still others turn
to literature and first-person narratives to express their ideas.
(Is the position of oppressed groups best understood by
listening to their own stories?) Since it is puzzling how the
abstract world of numbers or the lived world of personal
experience is related to the physical world of subatomic
particles, the variety of methods used by philosophers reflects
the issues that must be faced in formulating a coherent overall
world view.
One feature is shared by almost all methods used by
philosophers: Philosophers question authorities. Whereas
legislators or judges have the authority to declare what the law
is, and specific texts determine what is required by some
religions, philosophers do not grant any special authority to
anyone or anything. Every claim, no matter where it comes
from, is subject to scrutiny. Even common sense is not taken for
granted, which leads philosophers to put forward some very
weird views.
In place of authorities, philosophers try to justify their views
with arguments. Indeed, philosophers love arguments. One of
the earliest examples of philosophy was an argument by Zeno,
which runs like this: “The slow runner [a tortoise] will never be
overtaken by the swiftest [Achilles], for it is necessary that the
pursuer should first reach the point from which the pursued
started, so that necessarily, the slower is always somewhat in
advance.” If you think about it for a while, Zeno’s argument
should be clear. What is not clear is how to respond. One
popular reaction is, “That’s silly. Of course, Achilles can
overtake a tortoise. It happens all the time.” Philosophers retort,
“Everybody assumes that Achilles can overtake the tortoise, and
it does appear that swift runners overtake slow runners, but how
do you know what is really going on? And what is wrong with
Zeno’s argument to the contrary? You cannot reject the
argument just because you don’t like the conclusion.” In such

4. debates, philosophers try to uncover our basic assumptions,
evaluate our reasons (if any) for these assumptions, and
speculate on what our world view would be like if we gave up
those assumptions. This process can be liberating and
fascinating, even when (or maybe because) it leads to results
that seem hard to believe.
In seeking this goal through these methods, philosophers
address a wide variety of problems, which can be classified into
three main areas:
Metaphysics or the theory of existence addresses the questions
of whether God exists, whether we have free will, how our
minds are related to our bodies, what reality is, and so on.
Epistemology or the theory of knowledge asks whether and how
we can know or be justified in believing anything; and it also
investigates particular areas or sources of (supposed)
knowledge, such as perception, memory, and science. Ethics or
moral philosophy studies which acts are morally right or wrong
and which people or character traits are morally good or bad;
then other values, such as beauty, are studied in other areas of
value theory, such as aesthetics. Some of the most exciting
philosophical issues (such as those raised by existentialists,
phenomenologists, feminists, and philosophers of language) do
not fit neatly under any of these traditional categories.
True philosophers will not rest until they combine theories
about all of these various topics into a single coherent system of
thought that is justified without appeal to authority. Because
this ideal is so demanding, the process of doing philosophy can
be frustrating, but it is also something that can fill and fulfill
one’s entire life.
Source: http://www.dartmouth.edu/~phil/whatis/wsa.html
U3D1
TYPE – Reflective Practitioner
Based on your experiences and readings, analyze the roles,

5. empowerment of patients, and values needed to be an effective
nurse advocate and policy player. Discuss the APN role as a
change agent. Provide an example of a time that you have acted
as an advocate or a situation that you are familiar with that
involved an APN acting as an advocate. The text discusses the
limited evidence base for the credibility of advocacy, in your
opinion does it work? Why or why not?
Students are expected to:
1. Post an initial substantive response of 200-250 words to each
question.
2. Read postings and engage in the discussion boards 4-5 days
per week.
3. Respond to at least two other student’s postings with
substantive comments.
4. Substantive comments add to the discussion and provide your
fellow students with information that will enhance the learning
environment.
5. The postings should be at least one paragraph (approximately
100 words) and include references as indicated by the
instructor.
6. References and citations should conform to the APA 6th
edition.
Remember: Please respect the opinions of others, even if their
views differ. In other words, disagree professionally and
respectfully.
Plagiarism is never acceptable – give credit when credit is due -
cite your sources.
Unit #3 Materials -Topic
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Content
·

6. Advance for NPs & PAs
This website contains information on advance for NPs & PAs
·
The Internet Journal of Advanced Nursing Practice
The Internet Journal of Advanced Nursing Practice
·
Supplemental Material
Click on the link below found in CINAHL Plus Full Text to
reach your required reading. If the link does not work, use the
APA citation to locate the article within CINAHL Plus Full
Text on the Library Tab in Blackboard.
Ten Tips for New NPs
false
Required and Suggested Readings
Required
Text Book Readings:
Nurse Practitioner's Business Practice And Legal Guide:
Chapter 6
Hamric et al: Above readings
Suggested Readings:
Dill, M. J., Pankow, S., Erikson, C., & Shipman, S. (2013).
Survey shows consumers open to A greater role for physician
assistants and nurse practitioners. Health Affairs, 32(6), 1135-
42.
Stavrianopoulos, T. (2012). The clinical nurse leader. Health
Science Journal, 6(3), 392-401 10p.
Garland Baird, L. M., & Miller, T. (2015). Factors influencing

7. evidence-based practice for community nurses. British Journal
Of Community Nursing, 20(5), 233-242.
Doi:10.12968/bjcn.2015.20.5.233.
Young T, Rohwer A, Volmink J, Clarke M (2014) What Are the
Effects of Teaching Evidence-Based Health Care (EBHC)?
Overview of Systematic Reviews. PLoS ONE 9(1).
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0086706