While Ethical Naturalists believe it holds great importance as it can convey facts and help us to understand ethical theories, there are those who strongly disagree with this. For example Intuitionists, such as Moore, believe that our intuition is more useful when wanting to know how to act morally than knowing the definitions of ethical terms. Although Non-Cognitive theories disagree with the factual content of ethical statements, it is clear that they still see some significance in ethical language. However rather than seeing it as facts, they accept that morality is subjective and suggest that the importance of ethical language is provided by the emotions conveyed in the phrases used. Perhaps more so than Emotivists, Prescriptivists see ethical language as fairly meaningful.
In this particular case, Murray does a great job sharing personal experiences upon his argument of whether there should be more vocational schools and stop using a college degree as a requirement for jobs, but stands defenseless due to the omission of statistics where only one statistic stands to defend his position. In Anglesey’s article “How Can I Incorporate Evidence into My Paper” she states that “[one needs] the author’s expertise to solidify [their] claim” which Murray does not do successfully in his paper, which ultimately weakens the evidence Murray can provide to specify his opposition and argument. Moreover, the type of evidence Murray could have recognized to portray a logical standpoint would have been to include facts of pursing high educational degrees and comparing them to those individuals searching for jobs without an efficient education. Also, including data of how past and present years have on individuals with the qualifications of education end of pursing high paying jobs. Murray could have went in so many directions rather than just providing one fact and relying on the rest of his essay on personal
“Nerds and Geeks” Popularity, being well known, and skipping school just to be a part of the “crowd” or the cool people. Though not everyone can be a part of that world, and that’s where the “geeks” and “nerds” come in. Their story and why we need them is exclaimed in Leonid Fridman’s piece, “America needs its nerds.” To make his point clear he uses satire, making it straight forward and humorous, also making it enjoyable for the reader. He uses an appealing set of word choice in his writings to keep the reader interested from the beginning to the end. Creating a relationship between the readers through pathos make Fridman piece a better read.
However, both characters’ temperament is rather similar in some ways both being somewhat craven without being hardly virile. Both stories have their pros and cons like everything else, yet they both center around the effect technology can have on the real, outside world. I personally felt that Bradbury’s story was more interesting than Skurzynski’s story. I found his concept that the slightest thing in the past might tremendously change the future causing a chain-reaction that, in the book, can be a ghastly one to be an intriguing idea. This story left me interested in Bradbury’s concept and wishing that the story had gone on longer.
A culture with a strong belief in individualism emerged as a popular subculture. This caused the development of new, youth based, alternative sport cultures, which sought to provide alternatives to traditional sport. These “California sports,” are different from the traditional sports because they are more for fun or recreational purposes, not solely for competitive purposes. They are also unregulated, so the participants of the sport usually are the ones that enforce the rules. This enables the athlete to be more creative and possibly have more fun than if he or she were involved in a highly organized, more intense sport.
Summary In his essay “Hidden Intellectualism” Gerald Graff argues that there are different forms intellectualism, not just the traditional academic intellectualism. Graff argues that these hidden forms of intellectualism are not expressed in what is considered the correct scholarly way, but rather they are “hidden” in our everyday conversations about sports, fashion, pop-stars, etc. Graff feels that as a child you can gain just as much from arguing over non-academic material than you could from debates on academic issues. He supports this by saying that arguing of minimal things requires just as much intellectual ability as debating over more theoretical issues. Graff goes on to further state that because of this every street-smart student has the possibility of being an intellectual.
`Reading Response #3 Graff’s expresses his feelings toward an intellectualism that is not taught in schools and is usually looked down upon even though majority of children have it. This intellectualism is “street smart”, or as he describes it hidden intellectualism. Graff’s argues that schools should let children write and argue about subjects that they find enjoyable, and that might be able to transfer into higher academic subjects, and learn that what they find enjoyable and interesting isn’t only outside the classroom but with what they learn can be used anywhere, and how they argue can be transferred into their papers. He does this by writing in his own experience, describing how he felt, and by giving examples of what others said about
It fits because in Malcolm x quote he describes how his frustration with not being able to read and write aggravates him. This quote led him to start his “Homemade education”. Malcolm knew that reading was a good thing and he knew that in the long run, reading would better himself as a person by having so much knowledge. In Plato’s quote he states that in the world of knowledge the idea of good appears last of all, and is only seen with effort. Malcolm knew that without putting in any effort to read and write that the outcome would not be good.
The chapter about thin slicing was one of the most interesting parts of the book for me, I would have liked it more if he would have elaborated more on this subject. Although he says that it is not a gift , but a central part of what it means to be human I do not necessarily agree with him . I think that there are people who lack this feature or are very weak at this.
The extraordinary people on the other hand, like himself, are superior humans who have the right to break the law under certain circumstances in order to benefit humanity: The only difference is that I don't contend that extraordinary people are always bound to commit breaches of morals, as you call it. In fact, I doubt whether such an argument could be published. I simply hinted that an ‘extraordinary’ man has the right…that is not an official right, but an inner right to decide in his own conscience to overstep…certain obstacles, and only in case it is essential for the practical fulfillment of his idea (sometimes, perhaps, of benefit to the whole of humanity). (260) He also believes that an extraordinary man has the right to commit murder if the act will result in benefits to the less fortunate. The idea of a superior man came into the mind of Raskolnikov when making a living was impossible without violating the law.