The researcher considers that it can only be done by more focusing on the method to which Husserl asserted in knowing the essence of things. With this matter, the researcher anticipates that this paper will serve as a gadfly of those people who are already enclosed by the presuppositions, beliefs, judgments, prejudices, and biases that hinders them of being a pure consciousness. It is now our concern to know and follow the ideas of Husserl in knowing the essence of things. Edmund Husserl’s Phenomenology: a means to arrive the vista of transcendentally purified phenomena. To begin this paper, it is more appropriate to talk first about the method which Husserl fashioned in order for man to get back to the things in themselves, and this method is what he called phenomenological reduction.
Then, how could we make a comparison among such different things? The answer is not to pay attention to the obvious differences but to the inner similarities. I do not mean I will not analyze those differences—which make each story exquisitely unique—but we need something to attach to in order to fulfill a comparison based on meaning rather than on structure. Surprisingly, when we change our view we can realize that the three stories are analogous, perhaps Dead men’s path in another level, but finally it is also analogous to the others. This analogy is based on internal patterns that appear to be in the three stories.
He derived a hierarchy of needs, at the bottom of which are physiological needs, followed by safety needs, belongingness and love needs, esteem needs, and self-actualization needs. Each need emerges with the satiation of the need before it. Maslow’s theory has sparked a wide range of research into whether his hierarchy order is accurate. There is some empirical evidence to suggest that some order of needs does exist. On the other hand, large range of research claims the ordering is ambiguous or overlapping.
This extract is taken from C.S Lewis’s novel “Perelandra” highlights ones internal struggle between their sanity and possible madness. Through the usage of narration and language (1st person) as well as his comforting and easing diction, Lewis creates a vast bond between his readers and the character, furthering the vast understanding of the characters situation during, what can be seen, his rampage. Lewis’s explicit imagery furthers the reader’s perception of the character and his fears of what, we never actually find out to be. As seen in the first paragraph of his work, Lewis begins “At last I came to the crossroads by the little Wesleyan chapel where I had to turn to the left under the beech trees” directly providing a setting for the extract, through the use of imagery and precise directions of this setting, Lewis allows us to associate and be drawn into this highlighted scene literally from the first line. Lewis then goes on to explain the protagonist’s friend (A guess however not 100% proved due to the limited detailed text provided), Ransom, furthering the development of the setting.
Case-based reasoning Case-based reasoning is a problem solving paradigm that in many respects is fundamentally different from other major AI approaches. Instead of re-lying solely on general knowledge of a problem domain, or making associations along generalized relationships between problem descriptors and conclusions, CBR is able to utilize the specific knowledge of previously experienced, concrete problem situations (cases). A new problem is solved by finding a similar past case, and reusing it in the new problem situation. A second important difference is that CBR also is an approach to incremental, sustained learning, since a new experience is retained each time a problem has been solved, making it immediately available for future problems
In this essay I am going to systematically outline these three arguments whilst also looking at some of the counter arguments against them before finally formulating a personal assessment as to the weight of his claim. The doubting argument is the first Descartes expresses in favour of his dualism. It is essentially a manipulation of his ‘i think therefore i am’ as he observes that while he can call into question the existence of his body, it is impossible for him to doubt the existence of his mind and that he is thinking as through the very act of doubting he would express thought. From this he deduces that due to the fact that the existence of one can be doubted and that of the other cannot, mind and body must be distinct. The argument is laid out as such: Premise 1: I can doubt that my body exists.
But what sets these journeys apart are their purposes. The purpose for a journey to be undertaken can vary greatly from religious enlightenment and colonising to seeking knowledge and psychological growth. On all types of journeys, the traveler is in search of identity. Sometimes, the “search” is not intentional, but results from reaching the goal. This search can involve the traveler understanding both positive and negative facets about themselves, including articles, perspectives and traits.
It is by no means perfect, but it will serve to provide the details of a worldview and what that entails. The first area of what makes a worldview is philosophy. Philosophy is the portion of one’s worldview that provides details of how one defines truth and the methods of how one comes to that conclusion. Philosophy is powerful and often underrated. Though it has the power to override the other schools of thought in terms of whether or not someone will believe something, the common man has the propensity to either ignore or attempt to compartmentalize his philosophy so as to
The wording of a request is very specific and solicits a response. Sometimes we aren’t ready for a response or for the potential response to the request, yet we ask anyway because that’s the common language we use; the request language. Sometimes, what we want to ask, say or achieve isn’t really a request. Instead, we use the request language but what we really want to say is more closely related to a directive or a rhetorical question. Requests result in an outcome and we need to be clear in advance of whether we desire an outcome to our question and if so, which outcomes we want.
For some, this is inevitable given the subject; for others, it suggests that religious statements are in fact empty of meaning. There have been two main types of approach to these problems. Realists take as their starting point the idea that language corresponds to reality: for every statement we make there is a state of affairs that exists if that statement is true. This is called the correspondence theory. On the other hand, anti-realists consider reality fundamentally separate from language, and insist that meaning is a matter of coherence, not correspondence: a statement achieves meaning and truth through its relationship to other ideas or activities.