Gaddis claims that not explaining clearly the distinction between rational and accidental causes is the more serious problem with Carr. Gaddis says in his book that there are three alternative views on causation. The first connecting cause is between the immediate, intermediate and the distant. The second connecting cause is between the exceptional and the general. While the third connecting cause is between the factual and the counterfactual, which Gaddis explains all three.
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
Habermas critiques Gadamer’s thought by questioning the overall concept and the central role of tradition, arguing the possibilities of certain sub-conscious interests and specific authorial forces that distort tradition. In order to accurately explore the thoughts and beliefs of Gadamer and Habermas surrounding that of the concept of “tradition”, one must first establish the basic foundation of hermeneutics upon which these ideas are to be centred. Heidegger offers an effective ground on which to base the majority of these philosophical positions for that of classical hermeneutics by initially revealing hidden meanings in hermeneutical texts, exploring authoritative objectives and developing a clearer overall understanding of them. A later shift in focus in hermeneutics during the 20th century brought about an apparent lean toward specifically “epistemological foundations… or the methodological principles which lead to objective knowledge in the human sciences” (Ormiston, G & Schrift, A, 1990), thus encouraging the questioning of knowledge to be centred upon that of “truth” and “Being”. To Heidegger, it is the former understanding which leads to a solid basis of
A substantial response shows thought and critical thinking, a short, two or three sentence response is not acceptable. Support your opinions with references. You may use course material, but be specific. Personal experiences, etc. may be used to enhance your perspective to the question but they must be valid and relative to the subject matter.
Both Auden and Watson effectively form representations and perspectives through the implementation of techniques within their texts. Auden actively uses poetic techniques to display his own negative perspective regarding the power of dictators in "Epitaph of a Tyrant". Auden immediately creates an ambiguous environment as the first line states how dictators are after "perfection, of a kind". The slight pause after perfection satirises its positive connotation casting doubt upon the reader questioning what type of perfection that the dictators wanted. In addition, Auden further demonstrates his negative perspective through the comment on the amount of knowledge the dictators know; "[Dictators] knew human folly like the back of [their] hand".
PJ Koscher An Analysis of the Nature of Blame: Reactive Attitude vs. Assessment In current philosophical literature on moral responsibility, there have been recent developments on the increased focus on the nature of blame. A theory of the nature of blame claims to understand what it means for one to morally blame another for an act previously performed. An account of the nature of blame is an account of the conditions necessary for the holding of the blame relation to be deemed appropriate. There are three main accounts of the nature of blame currently in play in philosophical literature on moral responsibility: sanction, assessment, and reactive attitude. In this essay, I will provide a thorough explanation of both the reactive attitude and the assessment accounts and will show how the reactive attitude account outperforms the assessment account.
 Origins of the concept and its studyEdit The term ethnocentrism was created by William G. Sumner, upon observing the tendency for people to differentiate between the in-group and others. He defined it as "the technical name for the view of things in which one's own group is the center of everything, and all others are scaled and rated with reference to it. " He further characterized it as often leading to pride, vanity, beliefs of one's own group's superiority, and contempt of outsiders.  Robert K. Merton comments that Sumner's additional characterization robbed the concept of some analytical power because, Merton argues, centrality and superiority are often correlated, but need to be kept analytically distinct.  Anthropologists such as Franz Boas and Bronislaw Malinowski argued that any human science had to transcend the ethnocentrism of the scientist.
Yet before analysing this, it is important to consider the main ideas behind Descartes’ meditations. The first of these see’s Descartes engage in a process of radical doubt, one which he believes will leave him with one certain truth, and thus a truth which can be used as a criterion to judge every other idea which he may obtain (Cottingham, 1992). The reason for this being the deceptive nature of the senses from which all his knowledge was obtained from. “All that up to the present time I
The first aspect deals with how texts can be interpreted and how one may find several hidden meanings in what has been written, so that every possible interpretation can be broken down and understood. The second philosophical aspect is concerned with the primary idea of Deconstruction: the "metaphysics of presence". Derrida argues that it is this exact concept which affects the whole philosophy of Plato (a classical Greek philosopher and mathematician) and beyond. Metaphysics can be defined as the abstract theory or talk with no basis in reality, although Derrida is adamant that the metaphysics of Deconstruction has a physical presence. The strategy of Deconstructivism is to reveal these two aspects and to show that there are undecidable factors involved, or more simply, that there are things that cannot take either side of opposing ideological ends.