In Plato’s The Republic, there exists a struggle between the characters of Socrates and Thrasymachus to find the correct definition of what justice is. Thrasymachus, being a Sophist, expressed his views on justice in a manner of rash sequences whereby Socrates closely followed behind with his own counter-arguments. These counter-arguments effectively exposed weaknesses in Thrasymachus’s argument for justice, and further crippled it entirely. By outlining and explaining Thrasymachus’s views on justice, I will argue two things; first that the weakness in his argument comes from only himself in abandoning his method. Secondly, that justice may be our deep-rooted understanding and ability to identify good from evil.
Analysis of Passage from Trouillot’s Silencing the Past: Power and the Production of History “The knowledge that narrators assume about their audience limits both their use of the archives and the context within which their story finds significance. To contribute to new knowledge and to add new significance, the narrator must both acknowledge and contradict the power embedded in previous understandings. This chapter itself exemplifies the point. My narrative of the Haitian Revolution assumed both a certain way of reading history and the reader’s greater knowledge of French than of Haitian history. Whether or not these assumptions were correct, they reflect a presumption about the unevenness of historical power” (Trouillot 56).
While researching Taylor and his views regarding the 21st century enlightenment, I came across a fascinating essay that he wrote on this subject. The three areas Taylor outlines which need development in order to close the ‘social aspiration gap’ (between where ‘we are going’ and ‘where we want to go’) make interesting reading. This encompasses engagement – recognizing your own role in changing things; self-sufficiency and resourcefulness – managing your own life and taking the initiative to change things; and being pro-social – building social capital. Some readers may see a close parallel with some of the ideas the coalition government has developed as part of its Big Society agenda. The very
Paper Number 2: Gaddis Chapter Six While reading Gaddis’ chapter six, he focused on how to question causation. He uses E.H. Carr’s fatal flaw as a big example for the distinction of “rational” and “accidental” causes. Gaddis also gives an alternative view on procedures of causation, and additional procedures historians need to keep in mind when narrate the reality of history. Carr explains rational causes as, “lead to fruitful generalizations and lessons can be learned from them.” While he says that accidental causes, “teach no lessons and lead to no conclusions.” Gaddis claims that Carr clearly confused himself as well as his readers about the differences between the two. Gaddis claims that not explaining clearly the distinction between rational and accidental causes is the more serious problem with Carr.
Write a thesis that reveals whether, ultimately, these viewpoints are incompatible with each other or must be seen as exclusive from each other. 2. Inherit the Wind was written in 1955, yet it is still highly relevant today, especially in terms of the continuing controversy between teaching creationism/intelligent design and science in the classroom. Write an essay that reveals this contrast. First, summarize the conflict as seen in the play.
Question 1: Using the chapters on language and emotions to help frame your answer, suggest two ways Ken could open this conversation more productively, beyond clearly using his emotions with “I” language. Ken could open this conversation more productively by “Taking Responsibility for Your Thoughts, Feelings, and Issues” (Wood, 2007, p. 239). Instead of Ken just start off by attacking Jan, Ken should ask Jan for a logical explanation of why she told Shannon about Ken’s past with Katie. Ken should of started off with “I am upset that you betrayed my trust by disclosing personal information” or “Is there a good time we can talk”. Asking Jan instead of just assuming Jan did it for other reasons is not fair to Jan because Ken is not listening mindfully to what Jan has to say about it.
Skinners’ Behavioral Analysis Marilynn Jones Instructor: Jacqueline Rasar Liberty University June 17, 2013 Abstract Skinner's Verbal Behavior will discuss the important work of namely “Verbal Behavior in terms of its content and effect on the field” (Salzinger, 2003, pg 1). He considers the elements of “paucity of experiments, the host of allusions to literature and the masterful behavior analysis directed at elucidating verbal behavior, the latter constituting an admirable example of how behavior analysis can be applied to other forms of behavior as well” . Skinner's Verbal Behavior in a New Century is this retrospective review of Skinner's Verbal Behavior from the Contemporary Psychology (1997, 42, 967970) found in the 40th anniversary book. There is a long history on Skinner's writings and his work was completed well before it was in the hands of his published work in 1957, “and even if he may have finished off proofreading and other author chores late in the preceding year, Skinner's writings on verbal behavior have a far longer history”. Some Fundamentals of B. E Skinner's Behaviorism journal will fill in all the gaps by synopsizing the various “written corpus into 12 fundamental points that will be explained by characterizing his behaviorism”.
Is Hume’s rejection of abstract ideas sound, and is his theory of concepts adequate? The notion of abstract ideas has been used by many philosophers, most notably Locke, to explain concepts/thoughts with general content, i.e. being about a class or set of objects. For example, our grasp of the word “triangle” as being about all triangles can be thought to rely on an abstract idea of triangles. An adequate account of concepts is especially important (and challenging) for Empiricist philosophers (such as Locke, Berkeley and Hume), as they cannot rely on a Rationalist-style belief in ethereal, inbuilt intellectual content .
Woodrow Wilson’s journey to separate administration from politics came from his influential essay that was published in 1877. This endeavor not only gave incentive to the movement to develop an American science of administration, but also laid down critical assumptions that have been the key focus of dispute among the science practitioners in recent years. To understand the issues raised in public administration it requires an understanding of Wilson’s stance. Wilson’s political administration dichotomy states that the idea of administrative decisions needs to be made without the influence of politics. Wilson’s central concern was that administration of policy should be separate and distinct from politics.
THE LOGIC OF POLITICAL ENQUIRY (POLS7045) JOHNATHAN PAOLI (312912) Ricoeur’s Critical Hermeneutics and the Habermas-Gadamer Debate The debate originating in the 1960s between Hans-Georg Gadamer and Jürgen Habermas portrays the fundamental importance around considerations of interpretation. Despite the fact that both philosophical hermeneutics and ideological critique on a certain level concern the importance of interpretation, especially in relation to the power structures which facilitates the engagement with tradition and the acquisition of new forms and sources of ‘truth’, the debate surrounding the ontological framework for hermeneutics and the consistency or compatibility of a critical theory within that discourse has proven a breeding ground for new considerations and reconsiderations of the relationships between tradition, prejudice, authority, interest and reflection and their position within the system of knowledge surrounding human inquiry. Hermeneutics is presented as that by means of which the investigation of the basic structures of factual existence is to be pursued—not as that which constitutes a ‘theory’ of textual interpretation nor a method of ‘scientific’ understanding, but rather as that which allows the self-disclosure of the structure of understanding as such. In line with this then the Habermas-Gadamer debate “…hinges most fundamentally on the relation of critical theory to the living traditions which prevail in the societies in which critique arises and which it seeks to transform” [Mendelson 1979:44]. The debate between the humility of hermeneutics versus the hostile defiance of ideological critique represents two opposing perspectives, in some ways addressing each other and in other ways addressing separate problems, concerning the foundational position of understanding.