Husserl vs. Bergson: Conception and Perception of Time Edmund Husserl holds the notion that time cannot be calculated without bias, meaning that the suggestion of ability to encapsulate time inside a collection of prearranged components such as minutes or seconds, is impractical. The concept of time isn’t intended to be detained, but is something that can’t be summarized in this approach. Despite the fact that Edmund Husserl does not objectify time by means of segmented measures, such as seconds or minutes, he has to classify it in some shape or form to bring the discussion to the table. In communication concerning the concept of time, we are then able to infer that each individual instant in time holds its own position, relative to all of the other previous instances, and also, to the current moment. If this was a false truth, we wouldn’t be aware of the variations between the years.
One fact that Devilly and Cotton stated that was clear is that CISD and CISM have to be classified as a falsifiable intervention system that have the same meaning until each can be defined clearly. Also the long term pathology of CISD and CISM has not been proven so the interventions can possible result in inconsistent results (Halgin, 2007). * Mitchell believes that emergency intervention is a supportive service not psychotherapy or a alternate for psychotherapy. Another important fact stated by Mitchell is that crisis intervention is the assessment that gives individuals the opportunity to obtain needed services and recommendation for treatment such as cognitive behavior treatment (Halgin, 2007). * * 2.
What can the gray zone tell us on these grounds? Levi is not a historian and is not obliged to settle the conflict between judgment about identity and judgment about behaviors. However, he writes: “Each individual is so complex that there is no point in trying to foresee his behavior… nor is it possible to foresee one’s own behavior.”59 He also demonstrates that even in extreme situations an analysis of actions and practices is the best way to reach a credible approximation of reality. Even though various people as individuals or as groups appear in the gray zone, Levi describes the gray zone mostly in terms of functions, practices, and states of mind, weaknesses and/or resistance. This is true even in the case of Rumkowski, who
The most significant reason for not succeeding is that the whole piece feels like a well-considered stream of logic only to attain you-know-what, it doesn’t feel genuine. You've approached my decision as something that needs to be changed, an "issue" to overcome and me as someone who needs to be convinced to do whatever it is that you think is right to do. To be fair, you do have good points about life’s being too short, our not having an eternity on earth, our need to seize the day in our very short lives. But I believe you missed a point: Just because we are not going to live forever does not mean that our only goal or source of joy is to have sex. I don’t ask you to spend 30 thousand years or even 10 for that matter into adoring me hopelessly without any response from me.
As Derrick Miller states,“The trouble in conveying a historical event is that, as an author, one has the obligation of showing the reader that the author’s representation is just that, a representation and not the original concept or the entirety of the event; nor told with absolute accuracy.” Miller means that it is impossible for a story to truly capture the full idea of the event it is representing. He also says, “To portray something is to represent it.” An event so devastating, such as the Holocaust, is difficult for one to portray. Jens Berkmeyer stated, “The Holocaust can never be portrayed either correctly or incorrectly.” It is rather a matter of accepting this specific narrative form.” Berkmeyer means also that the Holocaust was such a calamitous event; it will never be portrayed accurately because of brutality of the Jewish race.While writing the novel, Spiegelman realized this himself. At the beginning of the chapter he states to wife “I mean, I can’t even make any sense out of my relationship with my father…how am I supposed to make any sense out of Auschwitz?...of the Holocaust?” (Spiegelman 14). Spiegelman is clearly struggling trying to portray his father’s life in the Holocaust accurately.
the existence of a limited number of escape routes; 3.) the perception that the escape routes are closing, demanding quick action; and 4.) a lack of communication that clarifies the danger in the situation. We emphasize that these conditions are defined in terms of the individual’s perceptions or beliefs. Theconditions are based on what those at risk believe to be true at the time, not on what the emergency managers know after the fact.
One could argue that the logical positivists were unsuccessful in arguing that religious language is meaningless because the verification principle has many weaknesses. For example Strong verification is not possible to talk meaningfully about history as no self- observation can confirm historical events. Swinburne stated that strong verification excludes all types of universal statements as there may be a random event that occurs that may mean that this cannot be verified. However, A.J Ayer developed a solution for this which is the weak verification principle. This form of the principle allows for statements to have meaning if the means to which a statement can be verified are known.
The first criticism of the labeling theory is that it fails to explain who or who acts are decided as deviance. Becker argued that no act was deviant until it was labeled as deviant, however whether this label is applied depended upon many factors. Where it takes place, who does the act, when it takes place, who observes it , the meanings between those involved etc. However who is responsible for taking all these factors into account and deciding on whether an act is deviant or not, the labeling theory does not have an explanation of this. Therefore the theory is incomplete.
They can learn about countries that used their power to do bad things but they need to see that in history it has never worked out and will not help the country out in the long run. In
He states “So far as I can tell, nothing follows about whether we should fear death” (Feldman 141). Throughout his argument, he does not touch on whether we should “fear” anything. He instead targets A4 intending to disprove Epicurus’ notion of the word “bad”. He does this with the intention to prove that death while might not be an object of fear, is still something bad and evil. His own argument can be broken down: P1: Something is extrinsically bad for a person if and only if he or she would have been intrinsically better off if it had not taken place.