This attitude reflects the commonly-held view amongst contemporary scientists that Freud's theories are unscientific. In this essay, I aim to argue that while Fish makes a valid point about Freud's use of the unconscious as a rhetorical device, to consider it as only a rhetorical device and to dismiss its importance as a scientific concept is not only unjustified, but also impractical in psychological theories of the mind. Freud's theories, I argue, are no less scientific than other theories in science. Before I assert my own arguments concerning this matter, I shall examine Fish's position in greater detail, in order to understand the extent of his claim. A rhetorical device, according to Fish, "is entirely constructed and stands without external support", and "that insofar as it has been installed at the centre of a structure of conviction it acquires the status of that which goes without saying and that against which nothing can be said".
Santa-Maria begins his essay by expressing his belief that Franklin is actually hindering the liberation of the youth in his efforts to promote their liberty. He believes that Franklin’s whole virtue system is a paradox. Furthermore, Santa-Maria believes that Franklin’s virtue system is only a new disciplinary system and nothing more. He expresses his belief that Franklin’s autobiography is merely a collection of encounters with various individuals, who he then judges based on their virtues. Santa-Maria also says that while Franklin promotes the idea of being like Socrates, Franklin is in fact more like Epicurus.
Diodotus was more of the wiser, older man that has seen a lot in his day; Diodotus was only looking for the future good of his country. Never once did he say that it was okay what the Mytilenians did, but that as a politician you should use them to better your country rather than just disposing of them to get an irrational state of justice. The question of the day did not seem to be whose side you were taking because both men were Athenians, but the question was which side of justice for Athens were you taking? It would be wrong for me being in my early twenties to side with Diodotus because I once heard a quote saying something along the lines that being twenty is to be liberal and to be forty is to be conservative. It may have no actual basis in this topic, but I perceive it as having enough time when you are older to think more wisely and act more conservatively.
Comparison of Thoreau and Nietzsche’s differences of philosophies regarding nonviolence In King’s lecture, Thoreau and Nietzsche were regarded as representatives from different positions. King considered Thoreau as a supporter of the standpoint that the internal value should have transcended the external, or the technological improvements of human would benefit nothing. On the other hand, he took Nietzsche as an opponent to “all-embracing and unconditional love for all men”. More than King’s evaluation to them, their philosophies with regard to nonviolence also differ a lot. Their basic altitudes towards the democracy and nonviolence conflict with each other.
Niccolò Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes are both realists. Their works might be referred to as cruel or immoral because of their division of politics and ethics in their respective political theories. Although they lived centuries apart their works carry immense similarities with regards to use of force and violence. Both these theories declare violence, force and fear as necessities for maintaining a strong government, although the means in which they are carried out and justified differ. Their overarching beliefs dealing with human nature and structure of government are relatively similar, with slight variations, while the most distinct differences within their ideologies appear when analyzing the purpose of government.
As Lord Acton said ‘Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely’. The principle of the separation of powers assumes that certain functions should be carried out by different institutions and that no one institution should trespass into the territory of another. Its origin date back to Aristotle, the father of Political Science. Although he did not discuss the issue in great detail, he analyzed the functions of the three branches without suggesting their separation. The separation of powers however, acquired greater significance when John Locke, an 18th century philosopher argued that the executive and legislative powers should be separate for the sake of liberty.
Many people theorized about how true leadership should be and how they should act. Plato and Machiavelli are those who questioned the qualities of a leader and their definition of leadership still have validity in discussing the modern time republics. Plato's ‘Republic’ was written in ancient Greek in order to create an ideal state including the so called 'perfect' leader and Machiavelli's ‘The Prince’ was written in the 16th century giving advices to princes to regulate their states. Although these two philosophers lived in completely different conditions, both of them have strong points in defining a leader. Machiavelli has strongly persuasive arguments on leadership since he apprehends in his famous book ‘The Prince’ in chapter 17 the human nature very accurately.
One of them concerns the ideal leaders whereas the other considers the effective management of the state. However, Plato is stronger in many aspects than Machiavelli because he tends to the topics of ethics and education although Machiavelli gives more concrete strategies on politics through his realism. To begin with, there are many claims of Machiavelli about the effective leadership throughout his work, The Prince. They can be perceived as unnecessarily inhuman. Many of them are about being aware of the impact of decisions on one’s own feeling of protection.
Sophists were skilled in elaborate argumentation; were they would try and make the argument they were focusing on the stronger side, even if it was wrong or weaker. This often made them seem devious as they were working only for the benefit of themselves and their students, who were aiming to become high profile speakers or politicians. Socrates was unlike this in that his main focus was not on argumentation or speaking, he rather focused on questioning virtues to understand morals and ethics. He believed that all opinions were valid which also opposed the views of the Sophists who assumed that the wisest of people were genuinely correct and only they had the ability to teach. The main goal of socrates was unlike that of the sophists.
The most influential philosophers related to continental philosophy are Martin Heidegger and Jean-Paul Sartre (Moore & Bruder, 2011). Some themes of existentialism are traditional and academic philosophies are sterile from the concerns of real life, the world is irrational, and the world is absurd in the sense that there are not explanations that can be given for the way that it is. The above are not all the themes for this school of thought but there are the most compelling (Moore & Bruder, 2011). The second type philosophy is known is pragmatic. Pragmatic philosophy is a type of philosophy that rejects the idea that there is such a thing as absolute truth (Moore & Bruder, 2011).