Two essential lines of expostulations permeate this focus. Firstly, there is the assertion that Skepticism contradicts itself. A true Skeptic cannot possibly assent to a doctrine or system, and by this notion, cannot engage in any form of explicitness. Whatever a Skeptic may intend to state would contradict his or her own sense. The Skeptic must engage in a life out of the sphere of discourse only to let the philosophers guide discussion that may influence the State whether they or by proxy of other members of the political class.
Since every text needs to be explained or interpreted depending on a prior text and so on, then the text is lost in a case of absurdity. This study seeks to prove that if every text is depending on a prior text, which is, in turn, depends on still another text, ad infinitum; since all we perceive derives its existence from something else that exists by its nature and that is accordingly independent then we cannot have a definite regress, we cannot have a forever chain of causal dependencies. For example, if this universe is dependent on another universe and that goes forever, we would not have the universe in the first place and this can also be applied to literary texts.In absurdism the concept of “reductio ad absurdum” where the refutation of meanings by proofing or showing that it leads finally to absurd conclusions will be obvious when we follow the deconstructionist track of reading and interpreting
Whereas, Weber owed his approach much to the Neo-Kantian Philosophy. Therefore, When Durkheim talked about (Social Facts- indicated that there were forces beyond individual control that affected their behaviour in any society.) society’s objective and measurable emphasises on individual. Weber was more interested in explaining the subjective interpretation and meaning that individual put on their behaviour to understand the society (Symbolic Interactionism). Both called for using the “scientific methods” to the study of society, while placing the stress over objectivity, however, their interpretation and ideology behind of “Objectivity” were profoundly different.
Churchland assumes that people’s common-sense framework would be eliminated over time as it gives a misleading insight of human behaviors, cognitive abilities, and the nature of reality at large. The matter is that the eliminative materialist perspective is built according to a strong conviction that folk psychology is a “hopelessly primitive and deeply confused conception of our internal activities” (Churchland pg. 288). The main argument for eliminative materialism suggested by Churchland is the fact that folk psychology has proved unable to explain the fundamental materiality of the human essence, including the nature of learning, memory, and mental
Rather than focusing only on state’s selfishness and competitiveness, structural realists (neorealists) believe that states enter into alliances with other states (diplomacy) to regulate and keep a check on the power of other alliances and more powerful states. Although the school of structural realism (neorealism) is developed from the classical realist school, there are key differences between these two types of realism. According to Ferguson (2011) and the lectures and other materials of week 1-3, classical realists primarily focus on explaining the nature of man; that is, human nature is aggressive and human aggregates (states) are thus aggressive too. They argue that behaviors of states derive heavily from human nature, and self-centeredness and self-interestedness are presumed to be the fundamental principles of realism. In contrast to this, structural realists (neorealists)
The book entitled Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (1979) he stated and discussed the era between 1757 and 1830 – the period when the act of tormenting detainees was supplanted by close observation of them by methods for the jail rules. Foucault deciphers this change not as a refining of discipline, as is ordinarily thought, yet as a more right economy of energy. The significance of the change is the improvement and execution of another innovation, which he named disciplinary power. Foucault trusted that Power is the thing that makes us what we are. 'His work denotes a radical takeoff from past methods of considering power and can 't be effectively coordinated with past thoughts, as power is diffuse instead of concentrated, typified and sanctioned as opposed to had, desultory as opposed to simply coercive, and constitutes specialists as opposed to being conveyed by them’ He challenged the thought that power is exerted by individuals in the means of ‘episodic’ or ‘sovereign’ acts of domination or coercion, taking it instead as dispersed and pervasive.
And this has repercussions, according to Bro. Abulad, “something of this nihilistic tendency in the air, making it difficult for our time to decide which is good and which is evil.” Thus if this is the case, existentialism serves as a response towards nihilistic tendency. Existentialism is a problematic term to define. It is in the very nature of existentialism to be open-ended and undefinable. For existentialist philosophers, though classified under the same school, still have major differences in their ideologies, yet not contradictory to the existentialist movement.
In International Relations, various theoretical perspectives are employed to provide a clear framework for the analysis of complex international relationships. One key concept that scholars have strived to fully analyze is “anarchy” and its significance within the International System. Anarchy, as defined by many IR scholars, is the lack of an overarching authority that helps govern the international system. (Class Notes, January 29). Its importance and power to dictate actions between states is often debated and various theories have been used to describe its significance.
Bressler- is chaotic and highly variable context-dependent systems. In their view, such structures could not have the coercive power over individuals that the structuralists attributed to them. Jacques Derrida(1930-), perhaps the originator of poststructuralism, has argued against the notion of logocentrism. By logocentrism Derrida meant the coercive, limiting effects of the search for universal systems of thought that would reveal "truth." Instead, Derrida attempts to deconstruct, or uncover, hidden differences that underlie logocentrism.
According to class lectures and the article “Hegel Knew There Would Be Days Like These,” the German philosopher, Hegel, demonstrates that although some people consider history merely as a recitation of the past events, history is of a cyclical nature which repeats itself in a dialectic of three stages: A thesis or catalyst, which is a new ideology or movement that intends to change the status quo; this stage is usually extreme and leads to a conflict to create a new world order. Second, an antithesis, which is a reaction to the new ideology, and it attempts to repress change and reserve the current order. Finally, a synthesis or equilibrium, which compromises the old and the new order to create a new status quo (“Hegel”). According to Ibn Khaldun, in his book The Muqaddimah, civilizations have ages just like human beings. Ibn Khaldun estimates the average age of a civilization to be 120 years in three stages as well: First, a civilization is born when a group of people with or without a specific ideology gain enough power to press their claims against the status quo.