It is tightly packed and it is easy to begin making conclusions about oneself and the world at large through the lens of thought and reason. However, one of the most fundamental criticisms of the cogito is the possibility that it ties thinking too closely to existence. Indeed, according to MO Weimin of Fudan University, German philosopher Emmanuel Kant argues that the very phrase “cogito ergo sum” is a tautology – that “I think” is synonymous with “I am thinking” and thus its reasoning is nothing more than a self-reinforcing precept. Weimin also points out Edmund Husserl’s criticism of the cogito as nothing more than a mind’s perception of itself with some empirical characteristics, and his belief that the cogito was itself a compound truth rather than what one could call a simple, basic truth and required much more paring down in order to be a functional basis for metaphysical thought. It is also evident that the cogito is a somewhat impractical view of the world; it establishes a barrier between internal and external realities by claiming a disconnect between mental reasoning and the physical world, which potentially limits one’s ability to assess external phenomena Even if Descartes acknowledges reason is a powerful tool through his highlight of judgement as a means of assessing the nature of exterior entities, one is forced to conceive of perception in a roundabout way; for example, instead of being able to
And Marx followed thereafter, and he too concerned himself deeply with these philosophical problems, but he gave them a deep and firm analytical basis and entered the one remaining field, that of positivistic science, whose prophet August Compte was. Hegel even posited a zeitgeist, which gave a new meaning to historical ddddevelopment, and gave some significance to man’s actions and agency, some deeper scheme and purpose. Marx related these speculations to the moving spectacle of modern history, and explicated the suffering and victimization of so many. Hegel gave voice to some deep hopes and instincts of those who had pondered on history. Marx connected these urges and joined them into a great vigorous scheme, energetically
Indeed, they developed distinctive and essential theories because they deficient in agreement as to the nature of humanity, and because each viewed personality from an mortal reference point point in time . According to Erikson, the inner self creates as it effectively settle emergencies that are particularly social in nature. These include building up a feeling of trust , building up a feeling of character in the public , and helping the cutting edge plan for futurity . Carl Rogers (1902-1987) was a humanistic therapist who concurred with the principle suppositions of Abraham Maslow, yet added that for a man to "develop", they require a situation that furnishes them with validity (openness and self-revelation), acknowledgment (being seen with unlimited positive respect), and compassion (being listened to and caught on). The motive of this essay is to compare and contrast two competing psychological theories of human behavior.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s “The Social Contract” is one of the essentials of the western political thought, interpreted in an extensive and different ways. It encompasses Rousseau’s all-inclusive account of his explicitly political theory where he presents his philosophy in an intangible, legalistic manner far from examination of human essence and changes and developments peculiar to people. As stated by Strauss, the Social Contract is a breakthrough in the course of development of political philosophy, which needs to be estimated accurately because of its content and its further repercussion for the modern history of humanity. The Social Contract is not only about an idealistic and utopian just state, but about a state which leads to a remarkable transformation of each person in a society; however, book is significantly less concrete about workable and realistic ways of creating this alteration. A largely held opinion of Rousseau’s manuscript is that when writing it he was mainly preoccupied with developing an abstract normative perfect model which can serve as criteria for assessing the lawfulness of other existing societies and states, so it was not aimed at suggesting feasible and very explicit ways of achieving that goal.
Foremost, an advantage of Foucault’s concept is that Foucault believes that power possesses a more discursive aspect and can therefore act as productive as well as positive force on society (Hook, 2004). Foucault views power as productive and positive whereas most authors prior to Foucault have viewed power as negative and repressive. An additional advantage of Foucault’s concept is that a genealogical account is offered (Gaventa, 2003). This means that Foucault offers a fundamental historical critique which looks at the forgotten origins of human sciences (Hook, 2004). The purpose of genealogy is to critique the present and those aspects that are taken for granted.
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.
Otherwise knowledge is self-indulgent and self-serving. The quest for knowledge must ask questions of consequence, rather than relying on a pre-conceived notion such as the existence of God. However, we cannot doubt the significance of Descartes’ model of knowledge as he undoubtedly set the foundation of modern day studies of social science with his studies and methods of
Bacon pointed out the need for clear and accurate thinking showing that any mastery of the world in which man lives was dependent upon careful understanding. The understanding is based solely on the fact of this world and not as the ancients held it in ancient philosophy. This new modern scienceProvides the foundation for modern political science. Key words: Bacon ,Elizabeth, the Renaissance, England, monarchy, scholastic Philosopher, inventor, science, nature, empirical method. There are certain periods in worlds history which have a special attraction for the intellectuals and moral development of mankind.
Foucault 's "archaeology of knowledge" is on a very basic level negative, and along these lines neglects to sufficiently build up any new theory of knowledge. All he brings to the table are re-portrayals of the past, supplemented by insights on the most proficient method to abstain from being caught by old historiographical suppositions. These clues comprise to a great extent of saying: do not look for progress or meaning in history; do not see the history as the development of rationality or of freedom; do not use any philosophical vocabulary; do not assume any
But how is this possible? It is clear also that the complete fusion researcher with the object of study never succeed, it can not be Indian or Papuan lives with them and study their scientist or missionary. It can not, if only because he was not a "blank" when he began to study them, which means that between him and the object of perception will always be his views and ideas learned and brought up in a different environment. Therefore, regardless of their scientific and methodological preferences, the researcher needs to understand that no position can be neither the sole nor exhaustive and, therefore, sufficiently objective to eliminate the possible alternatives. To be consistent, the researcher in any case have to be thinking about the picture of research in accordance with his knowledge and