Patriotism has more to do with how people have had beliefs that are skewed towards the society while nationalism has to do with trust and belief in a country/nation. Nationalism includes people being in tune with their culture and interest of their country. People who believe in nationalism think that their countries are independent and they can be self-sufficient. Such people do not believe in foreign interference or aid. They believe in having their country goals and not depending on international aid.
The advocates of culture in conflict resolution such as Stephen Weiss (1994) and Glen Fisher (1980) believe that that culture affects negotiations and mediation because there is a logical chain between culture and human behaviour and perceptions which in turn has an impact on their decision making style. Bercovitch and Elgström also, stress the importance of culture in conflict resolution. They noted that “culture can also influence negotiations regardless of misunderstandings: it affects the positions as well as the strategies of the conflict parties” . On the other hand, some scholars oppose the argument that culture plays a crucial role in conflict resolution. They explained that mediation and conflict resolution is a ‘universal diplomatic culture’, which in turn minimises the impact of individual national cultures .
Working at the front line of this examination is racial conflict. What Cooper has as a top priority is not the destruction of one race by another, but rather the progress that is achievable when we embrace distinction and change. Cooper embraces multiculturalism and racial differing qualities with the end goal of progress and contends that disconnection upsets the development of racial gatherings instead of making them more grounded. Here Cooper is reacting to different positions about collaborations, or even admixture, between races. Cooper was persuaded that each race had a specific reason and message to contribute toward human progress.
Long before philosopher, Edmund Gettier came along, knowledge was thought to be equal to justified true belief, which is to say that: “You know p iff, i) p is true, ii) you believe that p, iii) and you are justified in believing that p” (Gettier, 1963) However, Gettier argued that ‘p’ cannot simply be known because you are justified in believing that ‘p’. He proposed several counter-examples to the Justified True Belief theory (JTB theory) and they are known as Gettier cases. In this paper, I aim to explain how a Gettier-style case spells trouble for the view that knowledge is justified true belief. Gettier’s main objective wasn’t to solve the mishaps behind the JTB theory, however other philosophers took it upon themselves to use Gettier’s examples and create newer cases similar to his. Take into example Alvin Goldman’s ‘fake barn country’ case: A man is driving down a countryside filled with barns.
This is then in accordance to what was being recorded in the appendix where it is stated that the account of Hume is flawed as one that connects different perceptions. If this is so, the two passages are compatible in essence, communicating that self as a bundle of perceptions does not explain that there is a principle of connexion. This consistency ought to strengthen and advance Hume’s account of self and personal
On this essay, based on cosmopolitan doctrine, I will argue why humanitarian intervention can be justified, DUE to the protection of human rights, and states responsibilities. Before proceeding with my main arguments, first of all, I will explain the Cosmopolitan theory. Cosmopolitan theory, instead of the state, regards the individual, as the major moral actor. Based on this
This is particularly relevant to cultural, specifically the introduction of multicultural policy to a society. Some would argue that cultural diversity could be detrimental to social cohesion. Social cohesion is defined as common objectives, shared values, social order, social solidarity and the sense of belonging (Forrest and Kearns, 2001). However, the counterargument only depicts a one-sided picture by neglecting the fact that the protection of the interests of national minorities has brought greater benefits in the following dimensions of social cohesion: social order and the sense of place attachment. More particularly, multiculturalism respects a diversity of cultures and pushes societies to greater equality and tolerance, and therefore establishes the foundations for peace and stability.
16 These differences, however, do not negate the fact of there being a strong ideological basis to fascism. '? Nationalism was one of its important elements, but it was a particular type of nationalism. The type of nationalism which fascism encompassed was holistic in that it sought to abolish difference whether of class or of ethnicity - and to secure homogeneous unity within the nation: "it sought to overcome divisive differences and to 1`ibid., p. 202 16Roger Eatwell, Fascism: A History (London, 1995) p. xviii. Eatwell emphasisesthe "impact of national political traditions, and the role played by leadership - fascist and non-fascist."
If we study that quote, it seems that to have harmony nowadays, we need to be one and the same entity, which is the opposite of our topic today, which is variety, diversity. Personally, I believe it is not impossible to have harmony within diversity, albeit challenging. That brings me to my next point, in order to achieve harmony within diversity, we have to find a point of similarity. Just to clarify, differences are beautiful. Assimilations in cultures are what makes our country unique.
This agrees with the concept of "dynamic" and "equivalent effect” developed by Eugene Nida. Hatim and Munday (2004: 339) illustrate that this phenomenon happens in translation when the TT needs to reproduce the same effect as it can be found in ST's audience. In other words, there is a search of naturalness in the TT, yet without altering the functionality of the ST. Accordingly, Hatim and Munday (2004:253) define that dynamic equivalence focuses on the TT reader or better explain "translating with naturalness and fluency". So, dynamic equivalence is a form of re-writing the ST and to achieve naturalness in translation, linguistic and rhetorical norms