Point (parenthetical documentation) a. Explanation/sub point b. Explanation/sub point 2. Point (parenthetical documentation) a. Explanation/sub point b. Explanation/sub point III. [Main idea] A. [Topic] 1. Point (parenthetical documentation) a. Explanation/sub point b. Explanation/sub point 2.
- 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.
| | |- be considered metaphors because the word or words used are not taken literally | Note: When the distinction is made, it is the following: when A is used to refer to B, it is a synecdoche if A is a component of B and a metonymy if A is commonly associated with B but not actually part of its whole. PART 3: SUMMARY 1. Which one is the most appropriate definition of metonymy a. Metonymy is the use of comparision of one thing with another. Metonymy is the use of word or phrase to indicate something different from the literal meaning. Metonymy is the use of the name of one thing to substitute for that of another to which it is related.
He was a great motivator through words, and not force. In his Letter from Birmingham Jail, King uses the Rhetorical triangle consisting of Logos, Ethos, and Pathos. By using all three of these techniques in his writing King is able to get the reader’s attention and to not only have people understand his point, but to add emotion, credibility, and reason to his writing. Kings expresses logos in many parts of his letter. Logos appeals to reason and can be thought of as the text of an argument, as well as how well a writer has argues his/her point.
This doesn't really fit in with the rest of the idea process, but it was an interesting outlook I stumbled upon whilst brooding. That Aristotle's made his views of rhetoric appeal to the greats in order for it to be passed along, not that he though only the greats should be privy to his ideas. Whether this is the case or not stands to be disputed, but why
This means truth that exists outside of bias and perspective (Doll, Lueders and Morgan, 2006). The third opposition is "an opposition between a self or consciousness that is turned outward in an effort to apprehend and attach itself to truth and true knowledge and a self or consciousness that is turned inward in the direction of its own prejudices, which, far from being transcended, continue to inform its every word and action" (HB, 1611L). Fish is stating that the third opposition is consciousness searching for truth and true knowledge (Doll, Lueders and Morgan, 2006). Each of these oppositions is attached in turn an
Perhaps more so than Emotivists, Prescriptivists see ethical language as fairly meaningful. They believe that the terms used are able to create absolute rules that everyone ought to follow. It would seem that ethical language is seen by many as very meaningful, although for varying reasons. However agent centred theories such as Virtue Ethics would argue that our main focus of morality should be on becoming as virtuous as possible, rather than deciding what is meant by ethical language. Therefore it would seem that perhaps morality should be more focussed on individuals’ actions rather then defining what is meant by ‘good’ and
Heraclitus’s greatest claim in his theory on metaphysics is that the LOGOS is the key to understanding everything. This idea of the LOGOS was one that Anaxagoras expounded on, in particular “all things were one.” (Mckirahan 196, Fr. 13.1) In this paper I will address the ideas posited by Anaxagoras as they relate to Heraclitus’s ideas in their respective metaphysical theories. Moreover, I will focus on how Anaxagoras elaborated and in a sense corrected Heraclitus’s view on the nature of being. 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.
The first and most obvious place to look for Aristotle’s view on relativism is Metaphysics I’. Here, Aristotle is mostly concerned with the law of non-contradiction and those who deny it. He includes Protagoras with such thinkers based on his relativistic notions that x and not-x can both be true for different people. A consequence of the law of non-contradiction (Met I’3) is that, if x is contrary to not-x,
Comprehension is the ability to summarize or interpret. Application is nothing more than demonstrating or showing someone, then your analysis is your ability to breakdown or distinguish and sometimes clarify. Synthesis is modifying or intergrating with something else. Then you have the evaluation where you measure, test and or decide on what to use or not use. The connection between critical thinking and ethics is that there are no general hard and fast rules regarding the application of ethics in various situations, which is especially pertinent considering the fact that what may be ethical in one situation may be considered unethical in another context.