It is a defense of studying each historical period on its own terms, and not imposing one's own moral and social standards on figures and situations that existed with, perhaps, a different set of ethical and cultural concerns. Butterfield’s text described historians who project modern attitudes on to the past, pass moral judgments on historical figures, and regard history as significant only to the extent that it labored to create the modern world. Such judgments are viewed as problematic because they tempt historians not to understand the past on its own terms. Butterfield argues that historians should write aesthetically rather than polemically, exercising "imaginative sympathy" in appreciating the lost worlds of the dead rather than seeking, or expecting, the vindication of their own current positions (92). The "Whig interpretation," as Butterfield calls it, sees history as a struggle between a progression of good libertarian parties and evil reactionary forces, failing to do justice to history's true complexity.
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.
Which source of power has most likely given the company's R&D unit an advantage over the other units? 7. Identify a true statement about the sources of organizational conflict. 8.Which stage of Pondy's model of conflict is characterized by unpleasantness, lack of cooperation, and negative perceptions among the people involved? 9.
In this paper I will attempt to give an understanding of both rationalism and empiricism, show the ideas and contributions each of the men made to their respective schools, and hopefully give my personal reasoning why one is more true than the other. Rationalism was developed by several important philosophers all around the 17th century. Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibnitz are all given credit for developing rationalism. Rationalism is the idea that reason and logic are the basis of knowledge. It says that knowledge is innate, and that it cannot come from sources such as the senses.
They take clear stands on issues. What is Huxley’s specific criticism of escapism? How does escapism contribute to a dystopia. Write something like: “ Huxley uses foil, symbolism, and irony to illustrate how escapism breeds a passivity in society that enables the rise of a dystopian regime.” Remember that your thesis needs two parts: a topic and a specific opinion. In this thesis, the topic is escapism; the specific opinion is: escapism breeds passivity which leads to dystopia) In Brave New World, John the Savage and Lenina Crowne serve as foils to display the effects of escapism in human beings .
This calculation, which relies heavily on the “greatest amount” to reach a solution, sounds more like an algebraic expression in need of a solution than an examination into one’s own mental and emotional process in determining what are morally correct actions. Although act-utilitarianism can prove to be a faulty theory among philosophers and theories, but the developments that unfold in the film demonstrate otherwise. Additionally, I will infer on John Stuart Mill and his intellectual line of thought to establish a more lucent understanding of the theory. Mills was a renowned 19th century philosopher who believed that quality was more important than quantity when it came to pleasure, in particular, pleasures of the mind. The consequentialist nature of utilitarianism and its moral value placed on acts that produce pleasure and pain leads us to analyze the rightfulness or wrongfulness of the act committed.
The aim therefore, is to critique and evaluate the chosen article in terms of strengths and weaknesses, to demonstrate an understanding of the research process and to relate this to professional practice. According to Smith (1997), good critiquing skills will prevent nurses from accepting inept research findings. However the task of critiquing is according to LoBiondo-Wood & Haber (2006) a challenging one and can only be effectively achieved through much practice and skill. Framework for analysis The framework used to critique this piece of research is the LoBiondo-wood and Haber (2002, (appendix 2). The framework suggests questions we should ask ourselves to cover all aspects of the research to evaluate it effectively.
Today I am discussing the theme of appearance versus reality. The fact that in spite of different contexts and values, both William Shakespeare's play Othello and Tim Blake's film O are concerned with the question of appearance versus reality. First of all, what is appearance versus reality? Appearance is how it seems and what it looks like; the exterior of a situation. Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
The traditional negotiation theory distinguishes between two negotiation styles. Positional bargaining which can be pursued in a hard or a soft manner has been complemented by the approach of principle based negotiation. In their publication "Getting to yes" Roger Fisher and William Ury proclaim being hard on the problem but soft on people to be "a method of negotiation explicitly designed to produce wise outcomes efficiently and amicably" The journal at hand deals with the question if principle based negotiation is an appropriate strategy to reach an agreement that yields promising returns for the single negotiator. My assumption is, that the approach may be too soft to maximize the negotiators outcome. Fisher and Ury recognize that "behind opposed positions lie shared and compatible interests, as well as conflicting ones".
Weaknesses of Causal Comparative Two weaknesses in causal-comparative research are lack of randomization and inability to manipulate an independent variable. A major threat to the internal validity of a causal-comparative study is the possibility of a subject selection bias. The chief procedures that a researcher can use to reduce this threat include matching subjects on a related variable or creating homogeneous subgroups, and the technique of statistical matching. Other threats to internal validity in causal-comparative studies include location, instrumentation, and loss of subjects. In addition, type 3 studies are subject to implementation, history, maturation, attitude of subjects, regression, and testing threats.