Point (parenthetical documentation) a. Explanation/sub point b. Explanation/sub point 2. Point (parenthetical documentation) a. Explanation/sub point b. Explanation/sub point B. [Topic] 1. Point (parenthetical documentation) a. Explanation/sub point b. Explanation/sub point 2. Point (parenthetical documentation) a. Explanation/sub point b. Explanation/sub
For Kant, if an action is performed, based on the end goal or result, or based on the outcome, it is not moral. Therefore the Hypothetical imperative was no use because these judgments were not dependent on morals and they were dependent on outcome. Categorical imperatives, on the other hand, are moral commands that tell eveyone what to do and do not depend on an end goal or outcome. According to Kant, these categorical imperative apply to everyone, because they are based on an adjective a priori of reason which Kant calls the categorical imperative. Kant broke the categorical imperative down into three rules which he called Maixms.
Anaxagoras’ ideas are in many ways similar to that of Heraclitus; however, there are some deviations that I will highlight in contrasting each philosopher’s theory on the nature of what is. Heraclitus’s main motivation in his philosophical endeavors revolved around his desire to know what is and the organization or order of all things that exist. Heraclitus's central claim in his attempt to answer his curiosities was that the world (and universe for that matter), is ordered, guided, and unified by a rational structure, which he called the LOGOS. This rational structure of the cosmos orders and controls the universe. Thus the LOGOS, in Heraclitus's view, is the unifier in nature.
- b. Conclusion: a proposition, which is purported to be established on the basis of other propositions. Syllogism 1. What makes something a syllogism? - A two step form of reasoning which has two premises and a conclusion 2.
Those supporting these points have been 19th century philosophers A.J Ayer and Antony Flew however their argument is apposed by those who believe it is meaningful as we simply do not know how to falsify the language. At the heart of this argument stood John Hick as he defined religious language as ‘believing in something and experiencing something’. Logical positivists thought up the concept of the verification principle in the 1920’s while in Vienna. Spearheading this movement was British philosopher A.J Ayer (1910-1989) and his argument was that in fact religious language is meaningless due to the lack of empirical evidence. He said that a proposition is meaningful if and only if it is known how we can prove it is either true or false.
Fish starts off his essay by stating that there are three things that oppose rhetoric. "First, between a truth that exists independently of all perspectives and points of view and the many truths that emerge and seem perspicuous when a particular perspective or point of view has been established and is in force" (HB, 1611L). Here, Fish is stating that the first opposition is truth that exists outside of bias and perspective (Doll, Lueders and Morgan, 2006). The second opposition according to Fish is "an opposition between true knowledge, which is knowledge as it exists apart from any and all systems of belief, and the knowledge, which because it flows from some other system of belief, is incomplete and partial (in the sense biased)" (HB, 1611L). This means truth that exists outside of bias and perspective (Doll, Lueders and Morgan, 2006).
supervision level 5 Supervision theories and practices began emerging as soon as counsellors started to train other counsellors (Bernard & Goodyear, 2009). Several different theoretical models have developed to clarify and support counselling supervision. The focus of early models of supervision had generally been based on counselling theories (such as Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, Adlerian or client-centred), but these orientation-specific models have begun to be challenged as supervision has many characteristics that are different to counselling. Competency as a counsellor does not automatically translate into competency as a supervisor, and when supervisee/supervisor orientations differ, conflicts may arise (Falender & Safranske, 2004). More recent models of supervision have integrated theories from psychology and other disciplines, for one-to-one, peer and group supervision.
What is Berkeley’s ‘Master Argument’ and is it Successful? Word count: 1,435 The Master Argument appears in one format in Three Dialogues as a discussion between Philonous and Hylas as to whether Hylas can conceive of a mind independent object. It is when Philonous points out that by conceiving of such an object, Hylas is necessarily framing the idea within his mind that Hylas admits that he has nothing but left but certain “scruples” in his defence against immaterialism. At first glance, the idea of conceiving of a mind independent object does indeed seem contradictory and initially one maybe as easily persuaded by Philonous’ challenge as Hylas is. However, it does not take long to realise that Berkley appears to have not been careful with his choice of words and has committed various conflations leading to fallacies of ambiguity.
After the accident it appeared that he had become someone completely different exhibiting behaviors that were opposite of his core personality. Contributions to Cognitive Psychology “I think therefore I am” this famous quote by Rene Descartes can easily sum up the human condition. However it raises the question “where does thought come from?” In the study of cognitive psychology the examination of the brain is essential to understanding how and where thought originates. Early on in the science of psychology two standard schools of thought prevailed, the holistic and the phrenology or the idea that cognitive capabilities are separated throughout the brain. Although both have something to offer neither can claim full victory over truth.
This service-centered view is based on the idea that service – the application of competences for the benefit of another – is the basis of all exchange. S-D logic has been identified as an appropriate philosophical foundation for the development of service science (Maglio et al. 2009). However, perhaps partly because S-D logic is first necessarily encountered through the G-D logic paradigm to which it runs counter, it is sometimes misinterpreted and thus misrepresented. This paper discusses S-D logic as a foundation for service science by reviewing the foundational premises of S-D logic and clarifying several misinterpretations related to 1) the S-D logic meaning of “service,” 2) the role of service in economic exchange, and 3) the nature of value cocreation.